Sorting Through the Election Wreckage
By William Hausdorff
It has been almost three weeks since Election Day and I’m
still sorting through the wreckage of my preconceptions and my
expectations. I’ve gradually realized
that four related but distinct sources of shock are amalgamated in my head and need to
be teased apart. These are:
1. Failed polls
2. Failing Democratic Party
3. Trump as President?
4. The Voting Public’s Tolerance
1. The utter failure of the polls to predict
the outcome in the key firewall states.
My initial shock was mainly because I just
didn’t see it coming. A look back at the
poll analyses indicates this was not simply a case of wishful thinking. In fairness, poll analysts got the key states of Florida and
North Carolina right—they were predicted to be more or less toss-ups.
But this was not the case for Pennsylvania,
Michigan or Wisconsin. For example, fivethirtyeight
had the probability of Clinton winning each of the firewall states to be 77%,
79%, and 83%, respectively, making Trump a long shot.
Most strikingly, in none of their forecasts, updated daily after
the conventions through Election Day, did the predicted vote margin in favor of Clinton EVER dip below 3.2% in Wisconsin and Michigan, and went no lower than 2.5% in Pennsylvania. In
each state, their final predictions were a victory margin of
3.7-4.3%. This, in my book, is a clear polling failure.
Why did this happen? Perhaps
it didn’t, and that recounts
could reveal that. The differences
between the two candidates in Wisconsin and Michigan are 1% or less. I don’t understand why there is any doubt
about the need for recounts in these key states, given the repeated allegations
that the “system is rigged” and the known attempts by foreign governments to
interfere with the US election. Just as the apparently losing
Republican governor in North Carolina was obviously justified to ask for a recount in his
election—the race there is just too close.
There is absolutely no question that Trump’s campaign and the Republican party would be demanding a recount if the situation were reversed,
and that it would be seen as legitimate. Why is it considered “being in denial” if the
Democrats/Greens ask for a recount?
That being said, I’m not aware of evidence that there were
irregularities of sufficient magnitude to change the results of the election. Yet
I don’t find it reassuring that the same polling statisticians whose models
utterly failed are now using similar models to “explain”
that the election results in Wisconsin are not due to irregularities. Just recount the votes!
So upon reflection, this shock is lessening, as there are
multiple rational reasons why the pollsters failed. When fewer than 10% of households targeted will
provide an answer to a pollster,
for example, it is difficult to believe that those who do are fully
representative of the other 90%--even assuming the original household targeting
was representative.
And, to be fair, pollsters everywhere are having a tough
time. The list of recent polling
failures encompasses not just Brexit, but also the Colombian referendum on the
peace deal with the FARC guerrillas, as well as the first round of the French
“Republicans” primary.
2. The Democratic Party is not a serious
political entity at the state governmental level in most parts of the US. It’s barely treading water in the House of
Representatives.
This is now glaringly obvious, and continues a trend that
has been going on for years. Conversely, the Republican/Tea Party is alive
and well.
The media obsession with the national election obscured the
fact that the state and regional figures are stunning. As Daily Kos neatly summarized:
Republicans [are] in
charge of 68 state legislative chambers and Democrats just 31. Republicans control both chambers in 32
states, including 17 with veto-proof majorities. Those 32 states cover 61
percent of the U.S. population. Democrats, meanwhile, control the legislature
in just 13 states, amounting to 28 percent of the country’s population; only
four of those chambers have veto-proof majorities.
In addition
Republicans now control the governor’s office in 33
states, amounting to 60 percent of the population, while Democrats control just
16 states with 40 percent of the population.
The Republican/Tea Party holds a seemingly unshakeable 55%
of the seats (238
to 194) in the House of Representatives, easily absorbing the handful of seats
lost to the Democrats. Given Republicans’ generally acknowledged superior ability
to gerrymander House districts, it may just be a matter of time before the Republican-dominated
state governments adopt allocation of electoral votes on the
basis of congressional districts, This is, at present, only done in Maine and Nebraska but was more popular in the past.
But perhaps this isn’t necessary. Clinton’s slender
advantage in the popular vote makes the electoral college vs popular vote
results a red herring. I find
convincing Trump’s recent boast that, if the system were based on the national
popular majority, he would have focused his campaign in New York, Texas, and
California and likely picked up the needed votes there.
I have to admit that I had drunk the Kool-Aid in believing that,
as the proportion of the electorate comprised by whites continues to shrink, a great
demographic transition
will make the Democrats the inevitable
party—Georgia and Texas are soon to fall!
One can blame gerrymandering, differential funding issues,
voter suppression laws—all of which I’m convinced play a significant role--but
the bottom line is that the Democrats are clearly not inevitable. There is little reason to buy the underlying
assumption that the vast majority of Hispanics and blacks will always prefer an
establishment
Democratic candidate to a Republican maverick, or that even if they do, they
will be sufficiently motivated to come to the polls.
3. The supremely unqualified and buffoonish
Donald Trump will be President, and the face of the US to the world, for at
least the next 4 years
In certain ways Trump
is most reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. This
is simultaneously painful and oddly comforting: while the 8 years of Reagan were brutal in a lot of ways, we did survive
them.
In an incisive piece, Frank Rich highlighted
the striking similarities of Reagan and Trump as candidates. Trump’s fabrications and pathological
mendacity are well established. But Reagan’s
… fantasies and factual errors [were] so prolific and often outrageous
that he single-handedly made the word gaffe a permanent fixture in America’s
political vernacular.
In light of his subsequent diagnosis with Alzheimer’s, I
find especially intriguing Reagan’s repeated claims
to have personally filmed the liberation of a concentration camp in WWII, when
he actually spent his war years in Hollywood.
As President, Reagan named as cabinet heads people
inherently opposed to the mission of their agency, whether environmental protection,
stewardship of public lands, or enforcement of civil rights. Infamous examples included Anne Gorsuch at
EPA, James Watt as Secretary of Interior, and Ed Meese as Attorney General. Trump seems headed in the same direction.
Trump is obviously little interested in the details of the job
of President. There is the bizarre
account of his son offering the vice presidential slot to John Kasich with the
carrot that he would be “in charge
of foreign and domestic policy,” while Trump would be preoccupied with “making
American great again.” This, unfortunately, bodes poorly for oversight of
subordinates.
President Reagan’s own hands-off management style gave rise
to the major scandal of his presidency, Iran-Contra. He was supposedly blissfully unaware that his National Security Council was secretly selling armaments to America’s arch-enemy Iran, whom
his administration had only recently designated a “state sponsor of terrorism.”
Despite his subsequent denials, these arms sales were ostensibly
to help free American hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to improve
relations with Iran. Notoriously, they were
also used to divert funds from the proceeds to the Nicaraguan rebels (Contras)
fighting the existing government, in direct defiance of the Congressional
restrictions via the Boland Amendment.
It’s worth recalling that several very high ranking Reagan administration officials were eventually indicted
(Secretary of Defense) and/or convicted of felonies (e.g., two National
Security Advisors; Assistant Secretary of State; high ranking CIA
officials). Yet almost nobody went to
jail: they were either sentenced to probation, or had their convictions
overturned, or were later pardoned by Bush Sr.
While no evidence emerged that Reagan directly approved the
individual actions, he was strongly criticized by the Tower
Commission for lack of critical review, accountability, and performance
review of his own National Security Council.
One big difference from Reagan is that Trump seems mainly focused
on the progress of his business and touting how smart and rich he is. Because Trump
“knows”
that, from a legal standpoint, “the president can’t have a conflict of
interest,” I don’t see any reason to
believe he will do ANYTHING AT ALL to managerially and legally distance himself
from his businesses. Particularly
worrisome is the current media perception that the legal
community agrees that he can freely commingle his business with that of the US
government, as long as he doesn’t benefit from gifts from foreign governments. I can’t even begin to estimate how quickly
this will seriously tarnish the US image around the world.
4. Half of the US electorate voted for a
candidate who was openly misogynist and racist, used threatening rhetoric, and explicitly
ridiculed many American values and traditions.
This, for me, is the most difficult aspect to digest. It would have been only slightly less painful
if Clinton had eked out a majority.
Perhaps there are mitigating factors. We know that Trump as a candidate would say
virtually anything, and reverse himself the next week (or day). Perhaps most “decent” Trump voters-- everybody
has people in their family they love who voted for him—were clever enough to
never take seriously almost anything he said, recognized him for the essential
conman he is, but decided that he embodied “change” and was neither the
establishment nor the diabolical Hillary.
And assumed he couldn’t or wouldn’t implement the really vicious stuff.
And maybe many of the 53% of white women who voted for him
think most men essentially see women as Trump does, or would be like Trump if
they were in powerful positions.
And I’m wondering what the role was of The Apprentice, where week after week and year after year Trump
portrayed himself as an authoritative, tough but Solomonic leader worthy of
respect and awe. I’ve previously suggested
that TV shows glorifying torture, or showing a competent, intelligent black
president, or with openly gay characters, may have helped shape public acceptance
of previously taboo topics. Could The Apprentice have imprinted an enduringly
positive, if not Presidential image of Trump in the minds of the tens of
millions of viewers?
Nonetheless, as a candidate Trump really did openly stoke
the flames of racial and religious resentment, scapegoated minority groups, and
gleefully talked about torturing families of suspected terrorists. In a time of
serious economic challenges, but certainly not crisis, half the voting
population supported him.
It is true that he
doesn’t have a history of actually putting into practice his violent
rhetoric. But what will happen if there is a real depression—will we elect a “change” candidate who actually had a track
record of violent, racist activities?
What I didn’t hear, and still don’t hear, is clear
condemnation of his misogynist/racist/nasty aspects by the “decent” people who
voted for him. People admitting there is a point beyond which “he could go too
far.” I guess I’m no longer sure where
that point is for half the US voting population.