So, She's Really Not ... Right?

In this post I talked a bit about Hillary Clinton and her team thinking about what the future might bring. Well, in the interim, two competing articles were published. The first, from Politico, comes right out to declare that Clinton will run for President, yet again, in 2020. The second, from The Washington Post, talks about the importance of Democrats stopping Clinton from running again, and declares that she absolutely should not run again.

If you read my first post you know where I stand on this one. I can't fathom Clinton running again, at her age, after being the victim of two huge upsets. Her team collapsed against a relatively unknown Freshman Senator in 2008, and then lost the last election to an opponent who had unprecedentedly low scores in the areas of trustworthiness and likeability. Simply put, voters have made it pretty clear that they don't trust Clinton, don't believe she'd be good for the country, and that, alone, should dissuade her from running again.

Of course, Clinton loyalists will always turn to something: that Obama didn't wait his turn, that the FBI screwed her in this election, that she won the popular vote. But that misses the point. Any truly dynamic candidate never would have lost to an opponent as inexperienced as Obama; they would have beaten Obama and had him as the Vice Presidential nominee. A quality candidate never would have lost to Trump; they would have watched as he self-destructed and would have focused on reinforcing the only areas of the map where Trump could mount his counter measure (the Rust Belt), rather than largely ignoring them.

Nothing would surprise me. Hillary Clinton has spent her life, seemingly, in pursuit of the White House in one way or another, so if she feels she has the drive it wouldn't be shocking for her to put her name in at some point during the run up to 2020. That said, if she does it there will be no possible way to refute the overriding narrative: that she is doing this solely for herself and her own ego, rather than her party or, if she truly believes the Democrats are better for the country, the country itself.

A New Cold War? One New Yorker Article Hypothesizes As Much

This article, posted in the New Yorker, takes a deep dive into the world of foreign relations as it relates to the United States and Russia. The article is certainly an interesting take to consider. I would implore people out there to take in information like this, and to consider what it might mean moving forward. The far right media will cry foul throughout this process, accusing the process of "media bias" or being "fake news," but in reality there is much more meat on the bones than they'd want to admit.

The interesting thing about this current Administration's (mostly) overt pro-Russian bent is how counter it runs to the general GOP's recent approach to Russia. Using history as a lens through which to view current relations between the countries is not only practical, but a proven method for trying to decode international relations and what's likely to happen going forward. The same rationale applies to looking at the fall of democracies and empires past when looking at our own governmental institutions. Doing so isn't the same as saying those things will happen, but simply indicates that the possibility is always there, and being aware of what things were antecedents in the past might help to avoid a similar fate in the present.

In sum, I'd encourage you to read the article linked above, regardless of your viewpoint. It doesn't hurt to broaden our horizons and consider possible outcomes, no matter how plausible we individually believe they might be. After all, I doubt too many Romans foresaw the fall of Rome in the way it ultimately happened, nor did citizens of the British Empire at the turn of the 20th century. Time is relentless, and, as the saying goes, those ignorant of history are bound to repeat it.

When Politics Collides With Anything

Just a quick post for this Monday. We often hear actors or musicians speak out politically, and the backlash is almost always immediate from whatever side of the aisle they are not supporting. Athletes, however, are often more quiet than their celebrity peers. Not so for Dexter Fowler, recently of the World Series Champion Chicago Cubs (and now, sadly, playing for the St. Louis Cardinals). Fowler was asked about the impact of the Trump Administration's travel ban on his family. He is married to an Iranian woman, so it was a logical question.

It seemed like a fair, reasonable question. He responded, and in doing so seemed to incite  a good portion of his new fan base, which tends to trend pretty conservative. Now, of course we know that the people most likely to comment like that are not representative of all people in a particular demographic. We also know how easy it is to act big and tough behind your keyboard. Trying to be yourself lends itself to being the worst of yourself when nobody can "catch" you. But there is no doubt in my mind that the question was fair, Fowler's response appropriate, and the overarching reaction was not as much fair or appropriate. Simply put, just because someone is an athlete, or a musician, or an actor, doesn't mean that they lose their right to their first amendment privileges. Just because Fowler will be heard in a much broader way than I am doesn't mean that he shouldn't say anything. Freedom of speech is something we all have, regardless of our chosen professions.

Trump's Approval Ratings - How Can We Tell, What Do They Mean?

President Trump and his team have done a brilliant job of discrediting the media, even when the very thing they are discrediting is not accurate. For instance, take the polls. President Trump has mentioned many times how "off" the polls were when, in fact, they were more accurate than they were in 2012's Presidential Election. But, since they were just off enough in a handful of critical states, President Trump can bring this up again and again and his supporters will tend to agree blindly.

That pivots, nicely, into a discussion of the President's approval rating. We've already established that Donald Trump is the least popular President upon first term inauguration; President Trump now has another marker in this regard, as he has the lowest approval rating after one month in history, nearly 13 points lower than the prior record holder, Bill Clinton. The question, however, is are these polls "accurate?". Put another way, as Politico does in this article, "Donald Trump might be more popular than you think." Politico breaks down different ways in which Trump might be more popular than traditional metrics measure, and they use the polling error in the general election as one example of how this can happen. 

Nate Silver's crew at 538 offer a different perspective, centered on what Trump's approval ratings mean for the GOP at large in the 2018 Midterm Elections. To get to that discussion the article doesn't dispute that the polls are saying different things, ranging from "approve of his job performance more than disapprove" to "underwater by anywhere from 7 percentage points ... to 15 points." The article then quiets all the noise by rightly pointing out that regardless of where on this spectrum Trump's approval actually lies doesn't matter: he is historically unpopular for a president within his first month. 

As to what that means moving forward for President Trump, his Administration, or the GOP, it is really anyone's guess. It is possible that Trump's approval jumps up very high; look at George W Bush's approval post 9/11/01, or his father's post Desert Storm for one way that could happen. But the chaos inside the White House seems, at this point, to make that jump unlikely at best. Furthermore, almost all Presidents during the modern age have gotten more unpopular as their first term progresses. The exception to that rule? George W Bush, who got a net of 2 points more popular. If President Trump doesn't manage to buck that trend, things could get really ugly, really fast, for the GOP. 

At any rate, this bears much more watching than usual, for two reasons. The first is that it is evident that the pollsters will be working hard to try to prove that they not only have an important role, but are accurate. The second is how much attention Trump pays to the polls. We know already that if a poll comes out that looks good for him he will trumpet it; if a poll comes out he doesn't like he will slam it. But one thing that is certain is that the general public's opinion of the President is a historically important factor in Midterm Elections. Will 2018 be any different?