I’m going on record with my Trump predictions

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m a person who doesn’t make many predictions, but with Trump I’ve made quite a few. And here I go again.

To summarize to date: From some time in the summer of 2015 I took Trump seriously as a candidate who could win the nomination, but I’ve never thought he had a decent chance of winning it all. For a while after the RNC I thought his possibilities were a little better although never good, but since then they’ve sunk.

I have based my estimation of his character not on media reports but on a combination of factors I have observed, in particular his own words in Twitter and debates and interviews, both within the last year and going back for many many years. I have also studied the polls, and although I’m skeptical about going along with this poll or that one, I have noticed for many years (not just with Trump) that in the aggregate, over time, polls usually (not always) are good predictors of elections.

I think Trump has been a smart and successful guy at a number of things, chief among them making money, building large real estate projects, promoting himself, getting a succession of beautiful women to either sleep with or marry him, being involved in the raising of responsible and capable children, and getting people to vote for him in the primaries this year. However, I think that, with his GOP nomination, he has reached a limit to how far those things will be taking him in the political arena, and that limit is the 2016 general election.

So my first prediction is that, barring some catastrophic revelation about Hillary Clinton (more catastrophic than those that have gone before, that is, which is saying something), he will lose. And I think his loss will be formidable and massive.

I don’t know to what extent he will drag down the other Republican candidates with him. I think it will happen somewhat, however. How long this depression of GOP fortunes will last I do not know, but it is entirely possible that we will see a Democratic or liberal/leftist dominance in politics for the foreseeable future or even permanently.

I believe that those who supported him will blame others for the loss. They will blame, first and foremost, other Republicans who did not support Trump. It will be a “stab in the back” scenario of major proportions, and will further split any opposition to Democratic hegemony. They will also ignore the fact that even had most Republicans voted for Trump (whether or not he did a thing to earn their votes), he could not win without some Democrats and many Independents, as well, and present polls do not indicate he’s won the requisite number of those people over.

I am undecided about when and how there might be a recovery from all of this on the right, but I certainly hope there is. But I believe that Limbaugh and all the others who treated Trump as though he was a brilliant tactician and the winning formula for the general will not suffer at all; their legions of admirers will follow their lead in blaming whoever the leaders blame.

Will the GOP survive? I don’t know, although I think it will. The rage against them will not abate, however, on the part of those on the right (and particularly the alt-right) who already hate them and want them destroyed, and believe that they themselves will be able to cobble together a new and more successful party in their own image. I think they are sadly mistaken about the desirability and the viability of that party, from what I’ve seen of them this election cycle (and in 2008 and 2012, for that matter, because I had already noticed them back then).

Reince Priebus is going bye-bye, and not a moment too soon. If Carly Fiorina replaces him, as she is rumored to want to do, that would be just fine with me. But RNC chairperson is going to be one of the most difficult jobs in the world, post-2016.

Maybe I’m wrong about some or all of this. It’s happened before, me being wrong. What I’d really really really like to be wrong about is the nature and future of Donald Trump. If in fact he’s the only thing standing in Hillary’s way, I hope he can stop her and I hope he’s a far far better man and makes a far far better president than I believe he is or would be.

For those of you who don’t know what rhythmic gymnastics is…

The New Neo Posted on by

…here’s an introduction.

In yesterday’s thread on this year’s American artistic gymnastics team, I described their powerful “cannonball” bodies and “ferocious will.” In the comments, “Ed Polacko” mentioned a contrast with the balletic quality of rhythmic gymnasts, and I decided to spotlight this little-known sport.

You may not think it’s much of a sport, because it seems to be a combination of dance and circus tricks. But if the Olympics considers it a sport, that’s fine with me. These ectopmorphic, elastic, stretched-out ladies have a ferocious will of their own, clothed in lightness and beauty. They are really magical—and believe me, formidable strength is also required in addition to their obvious flexibility and split-second timing.

Here’s an introduction to the different types of apparatus used in the sport: rope, hoop, ball, clubs, ribbon and freehand.

[ADDENDUM: Coverage of the vents in rhythmic gymnastics will be Friday and Saturday, the 19th and 20th of August.]

Slow loading

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve had a number of complaints that the blog is loading more slowly than usual, although it’s still loading. I’m working to find and fix the source of the problem, and I ask everyone who’s experiencing it to please bear with me for a while.

I’ve noticed that for me, the blog is slowing down only sporadically. Most of the time it seems fine, but now and again it’s slow. I’ve noticed that it seems to bear some relationship to how much spam has accumulated, and how recently I’ve cleared out the spam file. I’ve been trying to do that more often lately, and it seems to help. But I’m not sure that’s the source.

This phenomenon has occurred once or twice before, and each time it has cleared up pretty much of itself. I don’t think it’s an attack of any sort, but I don’t know for sure. If you could keep me posted on any changes, I’d appreciate it. My hope is that in the next couple of days it clears up as it’s done in the past.

My apologies.

The American women’s gymnasts, 2016

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve pretty much turned away from watching international sports, but the Olympics sometimes draw me in.

This year it happened again, beginning with the women gymnasts. As gymnastic tumbling has grown ever more difficult and demanding, the sport has changed from the dominance of the balletic style I so loved—and which drew me to watching it for many years—to a cutesy, herky-jerky, sharp and almost-awkward style that comes to major and explosive life in the extraordinarily complex tumbling passes. The style is not my preference, but I decided to watch this year and am in awe of the physical accomplishment and the sheer ferocious will of its practitioners, particularly the Americans.

I well remember when American women gymnasts were so relatively poor at the sport that they were never in contention, and it was all about the Russian women. Then the Rumanians. Then the Chinese. But now it’s the Americans.

This is due in no small measure to the once-Rumanian, now-American coaches, the Karolyis. Some of the history:

Those comparisons are apt, but even among the great teams the Americans stand out. Since 1976, no country has won five consecutive team titles at major international competitions. The margin of victory is the biggest since at least 1972.

It’s a byproduct of a system that has seen the United States dominate since 2011. They’ve won all five world or Olympic titles since then…

It means building consistency of routines that allows the Americans to be confident when they get to this stage.

“It’s just that auto pilot or push the button and go,” said Karolyi. “Basically, they’re just so much automatic.”…

…While Karolyi has led the Americans to unprecedented success, the past five years have been dominant by even her standards.

Of the 88 world championship or Olympic medals they have since 2001, 34 have come since the United States’ run of dominance started in 2011.

The American female gymnasts all have the same relatively-hipless build I remarked on here, a shape both initially selected for and then further honed by the demands and practice of the sport.

That phrase I used earlier—“ferocious will”—kept coming to me as I watched. I think all world-class athletes must have it, and the higher they rank the more of it they seem to have. But in these girls (yeah, I know, “women,” but they sure look like girls because they are so small, plus most of them seem to have exhibited the same ferocity back when they really were young girls) that ferocious will is expressed in the extraordinary nature of what they manage to do with their small, cannonball-like bodies.

The best of them all is acknowledged to be Simone Biles. At 19 and 4’8″, every inch of Biles is packed with power:

Here’s a photo of the winning American team with their coach, who is about to retire:

teamandcoach

You can see what I mean about the bodies. Also, the demographics of the sport have obviously changed. In terms of minorities, the five members of the team include two black women, one Hispanic, and one Jew. Everybody seems awfully friendly with each other, too. There’s a ton of seemingly heartfelt team spirit and hugging in women’s gymnastics.

Here they are, biting their medals:

medalbiting

A little blast from the past, this is the great Russian gymnast Tourischeva in 1976, doing a winning routine that is balletic but features the sort of tumbling that might be seen from a 7-year old these days. I loved her at the time, and still love her style:

Note also that there’s a live pianist.

So, here’s my Trump question du jour

The New Neo Posted on by

If he’s such a good manager, why is his campaign in the general faltering and seemingly disorganized?

And no, it’s not just media hype. I’ve noticed it, and polls reflect it. In this case I’m not just talking about some of the more controversial things he’s said recently that have turned off voters in the middle who might have been considering voting for him but are now joining the vast ranks of the Trump-scared. I’m talking about things like his recent pursuit of the blue states of Connecticut and Maine, and his refusal to buy ads even though he’s got the money:

Less than 100 days before the general election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.

According to an analysis by NBC News, the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.

The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.

Even the third-party candidates have spent more than Trump has.

It’s not for lack of money ”” the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million on hand.

A report in National Journal released Monday found that the campaign has requested ad rates in 17 states, taking the first step in what could be an expanded presence on the airwaves.

What’s he waiting for? November?

I’ve never subscribed to the conspiracy theory that Trump is merely a stalking horse for Hillary. But I have to say that—although I still don’t believe it—those who do think so are not nuts, because if Trump were just a placeholder for Hillary, this is exactly the sort of thing he’d do, while simultaneously attacking Republicans, making controversial statements that turn off many voters in the middle, and offering only sporadic criticisms of Hillary to cover his tracks.

No, I don’t think that’s his motive. But I do think (as I’ve said before) that he doesn’t care all that much if he loses, because his fame has only grown and the number of his minions swelled as a result of his run. What care he if Hillary wins? He’s praised her and donated to her many times in the past. And what care he if Republicans down-ticket falter? It’s not really his party, and if it’s yours—well, you can cry if you want to.

Then there’s his suggestion that there’s no way he can lose Pennsylvania unless the opposition cheats. Actually, it’s not a suggestion; he says he “means it 100%”:

“The only way we can lose, in my opinion ”” I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everyone watching because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state especially when I know what is happening here,” he said. “She can’t beat what’s happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat.”

Trump is down 9% in Pennsylvania polls right now. So no, it’s just a fact that there are many ways he can lose in Pennsylvania without anyone cheating. That has nothing to do with whether or not cheating does in fact go on there, and will in fact go on there. It’s certainly possible. But he is setting up his followers for non-acceptance of his loss, and accusations of questioning the validity of the 2016 election if it doesn’t anoint Trump.

This is pernicious stuff, dangerous stuff, and he’s been playing with this sort of fire right along.

I can hear his supporters now: Trump is the Master Persuader, these tactics are all brilliant, you’ll see! My answer is that the general is not the primary, and I saw an indication he could win the primaries but see none for the general (barring some strange and unanticipated meltdown of Clinton’s campaign).

Trump supporters will also say: but there is cheating!! If say hey, if there is, then prevent it or prove it. But if a candidate is down 9% in the polls, cheating isn’t necessary to defeat him, and acknowledge both that fact and the fact that this is nasty, sore-loser-in-advance rabble-rousing. Either Trump is so far gone in his narcissism that he really believes that he cannot lose (“she can’t beat what’s happening here”) or he is cynically manipulating his followers to the detriment of the country. Or both.

Does the world need another “Ben-Hur”?

The New Neo Posted on by

I dunno. But it’s got one.

I saw the 1959 movie in a movie theater in Manhattan when it first came out. The place was so packed that we had to sit very very close up, which turned out to be a big mistake for a young and impressionable child, because the movie was scary. The Roman galley. The chariot race. The lepers. The crucifixion. I was traumatized by it; sitting up so close to an absolutely enormous screen, I felt almost as though I’d been catapulted into the action.

Not long after the book was written (1880), it was dramatized as a play (1899). Since then, it’s been made into several movies: a short in 1907, a silent film in 1925, the Charlton Heston version I saw in 1959, an animated one with Heston’s voice in 2003, and now this new one.

I don’t plan to see it. But if you do, my advice is not to sit in the first row.

Taxes: ironic, isn’t it…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that Hillary’s release of her tax returns makes her look like an honest and transparent candidate when compared to the extreme reluctance of opponent Donald Trump to release his.

Now, you could say that she’s neither honest nor transparent, and if you were to say that you would be correct.

You could say that the issue of tax returns is a minor one compared to the far larger issues on which Hillary Clinton has been secretive and dishonest, and if you were to say that you would be correct.

You could say anything you want about it. But campaigns deal with that thing cynically called “optics,” and the optics on this are terrible.

It also is a problem that is what Rumsfeld would have called a “known known.” That is, way back during the primary season we learned that Trump was extremely unlikely to be releasing his tax returns if he became the nominee, and that Hillary Clinton would be releasing hers, and that it would make her look better than Trump in several respects.

You could say that nobody cares about this stuff, but if you were to say that you’d be incorrect. I don’t know how many people care or how much they care, and if all else was well with Trump this particular detail wouldn’t matter all that much. But all else is not well with Trump—in fact, at the moment little is well with Trump—and this is an easy-peasy way for Hillary Clinton to drive a “narrative” (another word of which I’m not fond except in the sarcastic sense) of her own relative honesty.

Which leaves us with the question of why? Why does Trump continue to refuse to release his returns, or at least some of them? It makes it look as though he has a great deal to hide, either because he pays so little income tax, or because his income is actually much lower than he’s always claimed, or because his charitable contributions are minuscule for someone of his wealth, or because of some combination of those things. My theory has long been that it’s about the size of his income (Trump is rather obsessed with size), because that goes to the heart of the narrative (there’s that word again!) that he’s been driving for his entire life.

I actually don’t think Trump cares all that much whether he wins the presidency, although I do think he’d much prefer it to losing. But he’ll survive if he loses, because he will be even more famous than before and have millions and millions of adoring new cultish fans who will happily blame others for his defeat. But if we learn through his release of tax returns that his wealth (although considerable) is significantly less than he’s always claimed—now, that could hurt him much more.

[NOTE: And just about no one believes Trump’s audit excuse: see this and this.]

Greenland sharks live 400 years

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, you read that right: 400 years.

If you call that “living.”

We actually don’t know all that much about shark behavior. But here’s my first introduction to it, courtesy of Herman Melville in a Moby Dick passage that made a deep impression on me as a teenager:

But sometimes, especially upon the Line in the Pacific, this plan will not answer at all; because such incalculable hosts of sharks gather round the moored carcase [of the whale], that were he left so for six hours, say, on a stretch, little more than the skeleton would be visible by morning. In most other parts of the ocean, however, where these fish do not so largely abound, their wondrous voracity can be at times considerably diminished, by vigorously stirring them up with sharp whaling-spades, a procedure notwithstanding, which, in some instances, only seems to tickle them into still greater activity. But it was not thus in the present case with the Pequod’s sharks; though, to be sure, any man unaccustomed to such sights, to have looked over her side that night, would have almost thought the whole round sea was one huge cheese, and those sharks the maggots in it.

Nevertheless, upon Stubb setting the anchor-watch after his supper was concluded; and when, accordingly Queequeg and a forecastle seaman came on deck, no small excitement was created among the sharks; for immediately suspending the cutting stages over the side, and lowering three lanterns, so that they cast long gleams of light over the turbid sea, these two mariners, darting their long whaling-spades, kept up an incessant murdering of the sharks, by striking the keen steel deep into their skulls, seemingly their only vital part. But in the foamy confusion of their mixed and struggling hosts, the marksmen could not always hit their mark; and this brought about new revelations of the incredible ferocity of the foe. They viciously snapped, not only at each other’s disembowelments, but like flexible bows, bent round, and bit their own; till those entrails seemed swallowed over and over again by the same mouth, to be oppositely voided by the gaping wound. Nor was this all. It was unsafe to meddle with the corpses and ghosts of these creatures. A sort of generic or Pantheistic vitality seemed to lurk in their very joints and bones, after what might be called the individual life had departed. Killed and hoisted on deck for the sake of his skin, one of these sharks almost took poor Queequeg’s hand off, when he tried to shut down the dead lid of his murderous jaw.

“Queequeg no care what god made him shark,” said the savage, agonizingly lifting his hand up and down; “wedder Fejee god or Nantucket god; but de god wat made shark must be one dam Ingin.”

Hillary’s loose lips?

The New Neo Posted on by

If you’ve had some difficulty following the details of Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri’s execution and how it might or might not have been connected to the Hillary Clinton email scandal, that’s because—as Austin Bay’s article on the subject suggests—the story is murky from start to finish and it’s difficult to know what actually happened:

Amiri’s execution intersects with the 2016 U.S. political elections. As the linked article notes, two emails transmitted in 2010 through Hillary Clinton’s off-the-books and unauthorized server appear to refer to Amiri. Clinton senior adviser Jake Sullivan was involved in both emails: one he forwarded on July 5, 2010 (10 days before Amiri returned to Iran) and another (one he sent) dated July 12. The July 5 email said, “Our friend must be given a way out.”

For many good reasons senior official-level traffic is “born classified.” Access to a SecState’s unprotected email traffic provides enemy intelligence services with clues and indications regarding U.S. foreign and defense policy. In some cases, it may provide confirmation of suspected U.S. operations or, perhaps, U.S. intelligence assets and sources. Assets include human spies.

The title of my post contains a WWII phrase that Bay refers to in his article. You may be familiar with it from this sort of thing:

looselips

The IRS and the right

The New Neo Posted on by

The IRS —up to its old tricks again:

The Washington, D.C., Circuit Court, overturning a June lower-court decision, let the suit go forward because, as LSU law professor Philip Hackney noted in the Surly Subgroup blog, “it found that the IRS had not voluntarily ceased its unlawful actions.”

In other words, the IRS is still doing what it was accused of in the first place and was supposed to halt.

In particular, the court reinstated two specific complaints made by True The Vote and other Tea Party groups that claimed the IRS had acted in a biased way toward conservative organizations that applied for tax-exempt status.

The two complaints were that the IRS had violated the group’s First Amendment rights, and that it had also violated the Administrative Procedures Act ”” both serious complaints that could land people in jail.

I am not feeling optimistic about these lawsuits, though. There has been too much false hope on this so far.

Would a Trump defeat have a marked down-ballot effect?

The New Neo Posted on by

Paul Mirengoff tackles the question, and his answer is maybe not, but it depends how huge the defeat is.

Personally, I’ve never quite understood down-ballot effects, although I acknowledge that they most definitely exist. I have no problem splitting my vote, or going to the polls whether or not I care about the biggest races or even whether there’s a big race at all. But I also am aware I’m not exactly typical of much of anybody, and that psychologically speaking it makes sense to be more motivated to vote when there’s enthusiasm for the top of the ticket.

Mirengoff writes (citing an article on the subject by Charlie Cook):

First, there aren’t that many competitive races for House seats. Second, voter doubts about Hillary Clinton and the desire to check her power as president will, in Cook’s view, likely rein in a down ballot effect. The Democrats may well win the Senate, but probably not because of Donald Trump.

There’s a third reason why a Trump defeat might not spill over. As Cook suggests, traditional Republican voters who don’t support Trump are likely to turn out in large numbers to try to make sure Hillary has to deal with a Republican Congress. They might also be joined by folks who usually don’t vote but are inspired to by Trump.

Sounds plausible, but (as Mirengoff later adds) it may depend on the size of the Trump defeat. The bigger the defeat, the worse it will be for the other GOP candidates.

I suppose that’s true. But to me it still seems possible that a big defeat will cause even more people to come out and elect more Republicans to Congress in an effort to thwart Hillary’s power as president. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part, but it’s a possibility that has some logic to it.

Why are we talking about a big Trump defeat? Because that’s the way it looks (and has looked to me for quite some time), and there are now only three months to go till the election. In fact, one of the reasons (not the only one, but perhaps the biggest one) I spent the primaries arguing so desperately against a Trump nomination was that I have always seen him as a sure loser in the general.

That wasn’t just based on a hunch, either, although that was indeed what my gut told me. It was based on evidence in the polls that not only was Trump unlikely to win, but that he would be the worst of all the GOP candidates against Hillary, and that anyone who said otherwise was hopefully spinning the evidence (see this for one of many posts of mine on the subject).

Now, I don’t usually make such bold predictions about election outcomes, but as early as August of 2015 I saw Trump as a very possible GOP nomination winner. See for example this post, which I wrote on August 22, 2015:

From the start of Trump’s rise in the polls I’ve taken him very seriously as a phenomenon. I haven’t understood those who casually asserted “He’s never going to win the nomination.” I’ve long thought he could…

So already, only about two months into the process, I had “long thought” Trump could win the nomination. But I never thought he could win the general, and that was a source of great turmoil for me as I watched him gain ground and I began to realize he was the almost inevitable nominee and the almost inevitable loser to Hillary Clinton.

That’s why during the primaries I saw every vote for the abominable Trump—however well-intentioned the voter might be—as a vote enabling the abominable Hillary. And now, when I am told by Trump supporters that not voting for the abominable Trump is a vote for the abominable Hillary, I confess I sometimes feel like telling those who voted for Trump long ago, when there were other excellent GOP choices available in the primaries: you should have thought of that earlier.

Yes, yes, it’s all water over the dam, don’t look back, we must deal with the situation as it is now. But that situation seems a tragic one, and I keep thinking it didn’t have to be this way.

The closest I ever came to revising my prediction that Trump’s loss to Hillary was inevitable was during a brief period post-RNC when Trump was doing well in the polls, and I revised Trump’s chances of winning to 1 in 3 (unfortunately, I can’t find the link to that post or comment, but that’s my recollection of the figure I picked at that point). Now I’d say I’m back to maybe 1 in 20, and that’s being kind to him.

For a Republican to become president, some combination of the following things must happen, preferably all of them but absolutely at least one:

(1) hold the base and get the vast majority of the Republican votes, preferably above 90%
(2) get a majority of Independents’ votes
(3) get some Democrats’ votes, more than 10%

I see no evidence that Trump has done any of these things, according to the polls I’ve read. Nor was he doing them consistently earlier.

Wishful thinking has driven the Trump voters from the start—both as to his chances, and about who he is and what he’s about. So I’ll add some wishful thinking of my own: I hope I’m wrong on both scores. I hope he beats Hillary and (this is an all-important part) that he’s a far far better man, and president, than I think he is or would be.