Making History

John Dickerson, of CBS's Face the Nation, asked a focus group a great question yesterday. He asked, "We're in a library and let's imagine we're here twenty years from now, and there's a book on the shelf about 2016. How does this story end?".

The "story" he was referring to was the current U.S. presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The question was a good one because it provoked thought and reflection about the current times and what we're going through.

I saw an article a few days ago that reported the results of a recent U.S. financial survey. Startlingly, about 70% of survey respondents indicated that they had less than a thousand dollars in their savings account. Now, consider this article by respected economist Larry Summers, which suggests that the global economy is hitting stall speed.  That means that even though the world population is growing, the global economy is not.  That, in turn, means that people are faring worse than before. That's not a good thing. What's worse, as Summers points out in his article, governments and central banks aren't sure what to do about it.

I believe the answer to Dickerson's thoughtful question to his focus group is that the United States is a country of growing inequality between the top 10% and the rest of the population, a process that started in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and one that has accelerated since the new millennium with the election of another Republican, George W. Bush.  I believe that it's this rising inequality of income and wealth which is creating a sense of inequity in society, and which is causing voters to crave a great disruptor-in-chief, like Donald Trump.

In this election year, while showing that he can indeed be the human Molotov cocktail the masses want tossed into 2016 society, Donald Trump has also frightened and offended enough people to prevent them from electing him president.

Returning once again to Dickerson's question then, what will that history book about 2016 say about the era we are proceeding through? I believe it will read that, while Hillary Clinton went on to become president and steady the ship that is the United States of America, that 2016 was a preview of a new era when, years later, a younger, pragmatic version of Bernie Sanders and, perhaps, a nobler version of Donald Trump, would emerge to become the 46th president of the United States, to lead the citizens on a journey toward a more compassionate society. He/she would do it not just because it was the right path to lead them on but because it was a necessary one to strengthen the union and, some would say, indeed, to preserve it.

Trump Bows Out

The momentum is with Hillary Clinton.  Take a look at these two apps, 538 and NYT poll that report, more or less in real time, which way the winds are blowing.  Right now they're suggesting it's going to be a Hillary Clinton blowout and a Donald Trump blowup.

If Florida swings Democrat (as it appears to be doing) and if Texas becomes a contest, watch for Trump to bow out of the race, claiming the election's rigged.  Then watch Mike Pence come within a whisker of defeating Hillary.  But it'll be too little too late for the GOP.  And it'll be Hillary Living History all over again.

You heard it here first.

Could we extinguish the war in Syria if we took away their arms?

Here's a thought: Why don't we take away the armaments we've supplied the warring factions in Syria and then see what happens?  Would the fire of war be extinguished or would the tribes resort to IUD's, hand-to-hand combat, blades and pitchforks?

The United States and Russia are responsible for arming, and in Russia's case, supporting their side in the Syrian war.  A burning fire is being sustained and a growing number of innocent people are being displaced or killed.

What would happen if the United Nations agreed to a weapons non-proliferation treaty of sorts, one where they could not be bought, sold or otherwise conveyed to third-parties beyond their country of manufacture?  It would be akin to choking off the blood supply to cancerous tumors.

What would the warring tribes around the world do, with no one to give them weapons?  Where would they turn, but to their own ingenuity?

This U.N. resolution could incorporate a pledge to protect all nations, in the same way that N.A.T.O. countries are obligated to protect one another, or the way the United States protects its allies.

With an absence of all arms, including rifles and hand guns, warring tribes would have to resort to sticks and stones or, at most, their own brains to make weapons.  In time, either the smartest tribes would come out ahead, or, if found to be committing crimes against humanity, aggressors would be beaten back by the military superiority of one of the few, agreed protector nations, like the United States.

The only losers in the armament-free world would be the private defense contractors, who would no longer enjoy a thriving market for their products, and terrorists.

What's not to like?

Hillary to Win By a Landslide in November

Recent polling suggests that Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by 6-10 points in the swing states.  I am surprised they are not showing a wider lead.

I predict Hillary will get two thirds of the popular vote.  Here's how I come up with that:

Trump has alienated all non-whites and other minorities, as well as women.  The only group he hasn't offended (so far) is white men.

America's racial profile is roughly 13% black, 17% Latino, 6% Asian, 62% white and 2% "other".  Assuming Hillary Clinton wins all the non-white voters plus the traditional 30% of the white vote that the Democrats win, she will win the election.  But wait, of the 70% of white voters that vote Republican, normally, half are women and I assume half of those women will also vote for Hillary because they don't like Trump.

My math yields 67% for Hillary, 33% for Trump.  Go ahead and check it.

Now, admittedly, this is a crude estimate based on very broad assumptions.  Obviously, some non-whites will vote Republican and perhaps more white women will vote for Trump but, on the other hand, some white men who normally support Republican candidates may in fact vote for Hillary this time for whatever personal reason (maybe they are war vets who feel Trump has betrayed them).

In summary, I believe Donald Trump will lose very badly in this election and the GOP will be doing much soul-searching afterward.  As they should.

What Americans Want

If there is are any pattern emerging from the American primaries, it's this: economic inequality sucks and Establishment politicians are gonna pay for it.  That's why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are doing so well.  Of course, Hillary Clinton, considered part of the Establishment, also has the most credibility when it comes to being able to close the gap between the rich and poor, which is why she's faring so well.  But don't dismiss the possibility that this election, come November 8, will be a huge protest vote from the American electorate, and that Donald Trump will be the next president.

Their Just Not Getting It

I love The New York Times but they're just not getting it.  This article seeks to explain how Trump's policies may backfire against workers but, after reading half way through, it feels like they're baffling me with bullshit.

In contrast, Trump's message that he'll 'slap a 45% tax on Chinese goods and that'll stop 'em from stealing our jobs' is straightforward, easy to understand and seems to makes sense.

If you're gonna argue against a simple argument, make sure your argument is just as simple and straightforward.  Otherwise, you're gonna lose the Donald Trump voter.  Heck, you lost me, and I'm not even voting for Trump.

I Rest My Case

Here's a great place to start.

On Trump's March 25 Interview with The Times

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's interview with the New York Times on Friday March 25.  Apparently, it went on for over a hundred minutes spread out over two sessions, one in the morning and a followup in the afternoon.  I believe I can get a better sense of the man if I watch his speeches and read transcripts of his interviews with the press, especially with papers like The Times.

This is the transcript, if you care to read it yourself.

First of all, a couple of observations from me: I think Trump is vocalizing what many of us have at one time or another asked ourselves about America's place in the world.  That is, who made Uncle Sam the world's policeman, the world's superpower?  And, just because he doesn't always articulate himself as eloquently as Obama or, say, the New York Times journalists would, doesn't mean the media or the upper 25% should turn up their noses at him.  The point is, he's raising issues we've all wondered about.  He's addressing the disenfranchised masses.  And (at least, I believe) he genuinely cares about his country.  Do I agree with his views?  Mostly no, and I wouldn't vote for him as president (too mercurial, for my taste, among other things).  But here's the thing: in this interview with The Times, he answered the questions directly, even if you didn't agree with his answers or if his answers were perhaps incomplete, changed later, or just not thoughtful, the way Obama's are.  He did not duck any questions and yes, we got to see where the chinks in the armor are.

For the most part, Donald Trump does not come across like a greasy politician the way a, say, Ted Cruz does.  He may be a narcissist, he may crave power but, he also loves his country.  This I believe, after reading the transcript.

So what did he say?  Well, he said he's for "America First".  He said the accepted doctrine (which, by the way, was made by the U.S. after WWII) that the United States must be the world's military policeman, which involves, among other things, paying for U.S. military bases in foreign countries like Japan and South Korea to protect those countries against aggression from North Korea or China, must be re-thought.  Or, more accurately, re-negotiated.  Especially when it comes to rich countries like Saudi Arabia.  Trump sees it as an unfair economic playing field, one where the U.S. can negotiate much better deals with European nations like Germany, and the aforementioned Asian and Middle Eastern countries.  He sees this as a principal reason for the United States' decline over the last several decades.

There's an element of truth to what he's saying, in my opinion.  As a Canadian, I've taken for granted that if Canada were ever threatened by another country, that the U.S. would defend Canada completely and as if it were one of its own states or territories.  I suspect that Germany feels the same way.  Why would it not?  U.K.?  Same.  Australia, which is a world away?  Same.  Japan?  Of course.  South Korea?  Ditto.  Saudi Arabia?  Despite Trump's comments, I think the Kingdom feels pretty safe because of America.  America has been spending a disproportionate amount of its vast GDP on defense of the Free World while the rest of us have sponged off the Americans.  Canada has been particularly exploitative, in that regard.

So Trump has a point.  Economically, the U.S., if you did the math, has probably lost money on this policy to be the world's supercop.  But do you change the policy to stop the economic hemorrhaging?

The reason the U.S. assumed the role of supercop was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons into multiple countries.  Imagine if 200 countries had nukes.  Now, there's a frightening thought.  Naturally, U.S. allies were the first to agree to not develop their own nukes as long as the U.S. undertook to protect them.  The rest of the world's countries were either coaxed, through diplomacy, or have been forced, through sanctions, to steer clear of owning nuclear weapons.  The theory is, if the world can be disarmed in this fashion, then the world -- and the United States -- stands a far greater chance of surviving.  The policy has not worked perfectly well, of course.  Pakistan and India, both friends of the United States but sometime adversaries with each other, have nukes.  North Korea, a rogue nation, has nukes.  China, an economic superpower, has nukes.  And, of course, Russia has nukes.  Nuclear weapons exist.  But they are so far being contained.  The policy, messy as it has been to maintain, is so far working.  No one has blown up anyone.  Except for the United States in 1945, that is.

So I guess what I would say to Mr. Trump is, if you want to make America Great Again, and you want to reduce the enormous U.S. public debt (over twenty trillion dollars which, like most countries, it owes to itself, to American debt holders), then, instead of abandoning the America-as-supercop policy which has kept the world safe for over 70 years after Hiroshima, consider raising income taxes and gas taxes and sales taxes, just like the rest of the world, so that you can balance your books and pay down your debt.  Meanwhile, keep in mind that while you have the mightiest military that the world has ever seen these past 70 years, it has fostered a tremendous defense industry, which has been a boon to your economy, and a tremendous military machine, which has employed millions upon millions of people.  So, it hasn't been all bad; and as one-sided as Mr. Trump has felt it has been.

Finally, even if America's most trusted allies -- the U.K., Canada, Germany, Japan and others -- chose to design and build their own nukes, and if America closed its military bases on their soil, I don't think the money saved would make the kind of dent to America's budget deficits that Mr. Trump thinks are needed to Make America Great Again.  No, what's sorely needed, if America's leaders are serious about making America "great" is income redistribution on a scale bordering on socialism -- at least compared to what most Americans are used to -- to reduce the huge gap between the haves -- like Mr. Trump -- and the have-nots.  Until America really gets that it needs to spread the wealth more equitably, with or without free trade and globalization and automation, it will continue to breed discontent and resentment among its people, and it will continue to find it increasingly difficult to reach that "greatness" that Donald Trump and his fans dream of.

I agree with Trump on one thing: it's not rocket science.

Trump: The Ultimate Politician

Is Donald Trump telling it like it is, or just telling us what he thinks we want to hear?

In Boca Raton, Florida last Sunday he said, "We're gonna bring the jobs back .. I'm working for you folks .. I'm self-funding my campaign".  That's all they needed to hear.

It doesn't matter that Trump can't just slap a tariff on imported goods from Mexico, or countervailing duties on products from China, without support from other parts of the US government or without triggering a trade war.  Maybe that's why he also said at that same Boca Raton venue, "We're probably gonna have free trade".

Say what?  I wonder how many people in the audience picked up on that one.

Maybe he meant that his dream team negotiators, which would include guys like Carl Icahn (who at age 80, is probably more interested in enjoying some time at the club than sitting in a room with a dozen Japanese trade experts), would call the other countries' bluff and cause them to suddenly increase the value of their currency which would make American products more competitive which, in turn, would lead to more American jobs.  Or maybe he meant that the threat of tariffs on Mexican products would cause companies like Carrier Corporation, which manufactures air conditioners, which he also mentioned in his Boca Raton speech, to cancel their plans to relocate their Indianapolis, Indiana factory to Mexico.

Who knows?  Because Trump leaves out the details.

Even if Trump did somehow impose tariffs on imported goods, in today's highly interconnected global economy, the consequences would be higher prices for everything; i.e. more inflation. Inflation leads to higher interest rates.  That can't be good for fragile home mortgages.  And house prices.  And consumers.  Who would have less disposable income.  Which would mean less consumption, and a shrinking economy.  A recession, by another name.  But that would mean layoffs and fewer jobs, wouldn't it?

Wait, what?

The point is, in the global economy of today, tough trade talk and tactics may bring economic consequences that are far more depressing than the ones we are in today.  At least the economy is growing.  At least hundreds of thousands of new jobs are being added every month, despite what Donald Trump would have you believe.  At least we can afford Vietnamese-made shirts and Chinese-made shoes and Mexican-made Fords.

Of course, Trump prefers not to get bogged down in details about any of his promises, and his supporters don't bother to go there.  Because, as the wise American  author, Upton Sinclair, who wrote many aphorisms, stated, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".  Trump's supporters believe their jobs depend upon placing their faith in Donald Trump and upon not trying to understand his opponents' rational arguments.

If Trump were truly earnest about helping the bottom 75% he would stop promising to cut taxes, which would benefit Trump and the rest of the top 25% a hell of a lot more than the bottom 75% (since nearly 80% of federal income taxes are paid by individuals earning over $100,000 a year, according to public sources like this one which means that any cuts would not benefit the bottom 75% that much).

No, Trump is interested in one thing: getting elected to be president.  To do that he knows he must also be competitive in attracting the top 25% as well; hence, the need to cut taxes.

Trump says he's not a politician?  He's the best politician out there in the worst sense of the word.

How Trump Changed the Game

Donald Trump seems to know his audience, basically, a dumbed-down America.  It took thirty-five years, but I give credit to Reagan and the GOP for driving America in the ditch like this.  Trump plays to it.  He makes it up as he goes.  He speaks their street language.  He appeals to how they feel.

The rest of us -- his opponents, the media -- don't seem to get it.  I thought the Fox News Detroit debate moderators asked excellent questions and were well prepared with their facts when they confronted Trump.  Yet they were trying to argue rationally.  Rubio, Cruz and Kasich don't get it either.  They're trying to debate Trump about policy, that is, when they're not ganging up on his track record as a businessman, something they are not qualified to comment on, according to Trump.  But it's not so much about policy for Trump.  It's about the the reason behind whatever policy of the day he is espousing.

The reason is always because Donald Trump wants to "make America great again" which, loosely, correlates with more jobs and a better life for Americans, right?  As such, it is tough to nail him down on policy.  Or anything, for that matter.  It's too late to nail him down, quite frankly.  He has first-mover advantage.  He was the first to coin the slogan "Make America Great Again".  He is the master marketer in this game.  That's because he changed the game.

The game is about appealing to the bottom 75% of America.  Provided he can motivate them to vote, he will amass a majority of GOP delegates and he will become the party's nominee for president.

So far, they are coming out to vote.  Seven hundred and forty thousand people voted in the SC primary a few weeks ago, nearly a hundred thousand more than in 2012.  And on Super Tuesday, GOP voter turnout was way up, sometimes setting new records.

What about his opponents?  Cruz and Rubio are senators and part of the regular political establishment.  That's why Trump uses every opportunity he gets to point out that they are funded by big money lobbyists and other donors, and that he personally hates "That word, politician" and, by inference, politicians.  He is in one stroke identifying with the masses, stating that he is not one of the political Establishment, and that his opponents are!  That's masterful.

In this game that Donald Trump has defined, except for Ben Carson, whom he "loves", his opponents are automatically disqualified.

And what about John Kasich?  I thought he was the one that made the most sense on stage Thursday night.  Unfortunately, he too doesn't get it.  The conventional war he is fighting is not the war that Trump is winning.  Kasich, though justified in making the case that he is the one with the most experience and the best track record as a politician, buried himself by doing so.  He just put an exclamation point behind the argument that he is one of the Establishment.

The rest of the GOP -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan -- do more damage by attempting to stop Trump than they would by lying silent.  They too are Establishment politicians, after all.

Who will win the contest for president?  If it's Trump versus Sanders, I think Sanders will win.  Yes, he too is an established politician but people don't see him that way.  They seem him as champion of the little guy.  And someone with more integrity than Trump.  Sanders is therefore a less risky bet.

If it's Trump versus Hillary, then I think the advantage will go to Trump, although the race will be very close.  And if Clinton's past comes back to haunt her (remember the emails, Benghazi, even Whitewater, for heaven's sake), definitely Trump over Clinton.

The way it looks now, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.  So, it looks like Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America.

Two Days Before Super Tuesday 2016

It's a three-way race for the GOP nomination as we head into Super Tuesday.  According to the latest polls, Donald Trump is way out in front and favored to win the most delegates on Tuesday.  When it's all over, he could have a total of 277 delegates, if my math is correct, more than Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio combined (275 total).  After March 1, delegates will be awarded on a Winner-Take-All basis.  Since Trump is leading polls in upcoming states, including mega states like Florida (99 delegates), New York (95 delegates) and California (172 delegates), Trump should win the GOP nomination with the minimum 1237 delegates that are required.

Unless Rubio and Cruz team up after Super Tuesday.  If that happens, either through one of the two of them dropping out of the race after Super Tuesday, which is unlikely, or by their cutting a deal at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, July 18-21, which is very likely, then Trump will be the GOP candidate for president.

And here's the interesting part: If Hillory Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as many predict -- according to the polls -- only Rubio would beat her.  Trump versus Clinton and Cruz versus Clinton contests are, at this point anyway, too close to call.

Sources:
Polls
Super Tuesday explained
Delegates leading up to Super Tuesday
How GOP primaries work in 2016

How Judge Scalia's Death May Spell Death of Gun Rights in America

On Saturday the United States buried one of its most outspoken Supreme Court judges in decades, Justice Antonin Scalia.  May he rest in peace.

Justice Scalia was the deciding ballot in a 2008 5-4 Supreme Court vote against gun control.  In Scalia's opinion, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had intended for individual citizens to be able to keep loaded firearms in their homes for protection.  Four other judges evidently agreed.  Justice Stevens, arguing for the opposing judges, felt that the Framers had intended only for the people's militia to bear arms, not for the people, themselves.  And that the Framers would have been horrified if automatic weapons (machine guns) had existed and had been included as legitimate arms for self defense.

So, people, we have Justice Scalia to thank for a gun-crazed America in recent years.

Which brings me to my next point.  That's why it's incredibly important that President Obama gets to nominate a liberal judge to the bench and why the United States Senate needs to confirm that nominee.  Then, when a gun control case is next brought to the Court will it result in what the majority of Americans want: gun control.  Something legislators, especially Republicans, who are beholden to their benefactors, are loath to implement.

Then, maybe, will we stop hearing about people harming other innocent people, like this deranged man did on Saturday in Michigan.  The day Justice Scalia was being laid to rest.

May God have mercy on his soul.

Trump Wins SC - Polls Were Right

Well, unlike Iowa, where the polls were off, they came through for Donald Trump Saturday night and this blogger has to admit he was wrong. Ted Cruz did not win as I had predicted.  The question now is whether Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president.  Super Tuesday will likely answer that question.

If Trump does become president, how effective would he be?  I mean, if his own party despises him, and if he can't work with the Democrats, what policies could he possibly advance?  If you thought Obama had it tough bridging the divide between the Democrats and the Republicans, imagine how difficult it would be for an outsider like Trump to force Washington to do his bidding.

Can Americans and the Free World stand another four years of dysfunction?  Has the United States become ungovernable?  How did it come to this?

Ted Cruz to Win South Carolina

According to this week's polls and experts, Donald Trump will win in South Carolina tomorrow.  Depending on whom you ask, he is ahead of the next closest candidate, Ted Cruz, by 5 to 18 percentage points.

I'm not so sure.

For one thing, the polls that have been taken are based on small sample sizes -- typically around 500 supposedly registered Republican voters in a state where around 650,000 of them voted in the last primary, in 2012.  That means their margin of error is huge, around 5 to 7%, statistically, all other things being equal, which means, in turn, that the lead could flip in the final contest tomorrow.

For another thing, Trump supporters are more likely to brag about their support for him, wearing their support of a non-politician, an outsider, as a badge of honor.  Since polls rely on a telephone respondent's willingness to "take a short poll", I believe that Trump supporters are more likely to wish to share their support of this straight-shootin' non-politically-correct disruptor of establishment politics.

Finally, in case anyone missed social studies class, South Carolina is a southern state. Ted Cruz is a good ol' southern boy (regardless of where he was born).  He's one of theirs.  Donald Trump is a bombastic New Yawka; a Yankee.  He might as well be a foreigner to some South Carolinians. Whom do you think voters are more apt to trust?

I predict Ted Cruz will win South Carolina tomorrow.

p.s. I am a Democratic supporter.

Why Republicans Will Lose in 2016

Regardless of who wins the presidential primaries for the Republicans, he or she will not get elected president of the United States.

Virtually all of the Republican front-runners decried President Obama's unilateral action to curb gun violence in America, yesterday.  But, as this editorial states, among others, they and the NRA are crazy.  Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of curbing guns and gun violence.  "Do something!", they are practically pleading.

This time, Republicans (and some Democrats) who are willing to continue to take tainted money from the gun lobby will have the wrath of the voters to contend with.  They will not get elected.  And that includes the Republican candidate for president.

You heard it here first.