Tag Archives: donald trump

July U.S. Election Check-in

Well, I was all set to tell you that the polls moved decisively toward Biden in June, and that would have been true with just a few days to go. But it seems the debate on June 27 really did cause a sharp swing toward Trump. I don’t like it, but these are the facts of the case. We will see if the effect is persistent or if things slowly revert to trend. Either way, the polls closing in the last few days of June may not fully indicate the state of the damage, so it may get worse before it gets better for Biden, if it does in fact ever get better.

STATE2020 RESULTMost Recent 538 Poll Average (as of 7/1/24)
ArizonaBiden +0.4%Trump +4.8% (June 1: Trump +4.7)
GeorgiaBiden +0.3%Trump +6.3% (June 1: Trump +5.5)
WisconsinBiden +0.6%Trump +0.8% (June 1: Trump +1.4%)
North CarolinaTrump +1.3%Trump +7.3% (June 1: Trump +6.2%)
PennsylvaniaBiden +1.2%Trump +2.0% (June 1: Trump +2.0%)
MichiganBiden +2.8%Trump +1.8% (June 1: Trump +0.6%)
NevadaBiden +2.4%Trump +3.8% (June 1: Trump +5.9%)

In June, 1/7 swing states had large (> 1%) movement toward Biden – Nevada.

In June, 1/7 swing states had small (< 1%) movement toward Biden – Wisconsin.

In June, 1/7 swing states had no change – Pennsylvania.

In June, 2/7 swing states had small (< 1%) movement toward Trump – Arizona, Georgia.

In June, 2/7 swing states had large (> 1%) movement toward Trump – North Carolina and Michigan.

So the trend is all over the place, with big swings toward Trump coming right at the end of the month. Trump obviously has all the swing states at the moment and is headed for an electoral college landslide if current trends hold.

Enough has been written about the debate. I’ll just link to this Politico article that points out that if you were just reading the transcript, a lot of what he said was very reasonable and even astute. That was my impression when listening to the actual debate. But I can’t excuse any politician for failing to be prepared and put on a decent rhetorical performance – that is what they do, and there 10,000 politicians who could have done it better than Biden did on Thursday night. So either he was inexplicably, inexcusably poorly prepared, or he really is faltering physically and mentally, with dire consequences for our nation’s future.

Trump, detention camps, and deportation

Trump is talking about incarcerating and detaining all the undocumented immigrants in the United States, which would be about 11 million people. Snopes does a good job of fact checking the specific things he has said about this.

A November 2023 New York Times investigation found that Trump was planning “an extreme expansion” of his first-term immigration policies, including rounding up undocumented people in the United States and putting them in detention camps before expelling them from the country…

Trump had made similar comments in September 2023, saying he would carry out “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” He also said he would be, “Following the Eisenhower Model” for such deportations, referencing a 1954 campaign to round up and expel Mexican migrants named for an ethnic slur—Operation Wetback.

In sum, in December 2023 speeches, Trump did call for mass deportations and emphasized that such migrants come from all over the world, using rhetoric that echoed past speeches. Furthermore, reporting confirms that there are indeed plans for a future Trump administration to build huge detention camps to hold migrants.

Snopes

It is not hearsay that Trump is talking about these things – he gave an interview to Time (covered here, confusingly, by CNN) in which he talked about this explicitly. He says he plans to round 15-20 million people up into detention camps and deport them.

Some people say the Trump-Hitler comparisons are overblown, but it is worth remembering that Hitler had schemes to deport Jews to Madagascar, Alaska, and/or Siberia among other places, before he gave up on those and came up with his “final solution”. The other parallel is that he managed to bring local police and security forces under his central control, which echoes Trump’s discussion of using the National Guard and military here.

The human rights abuses this would engender are fairly obvious, but there are also many practical issues. Citizens of the United States are not required to carry papers proving their citizenship, so who do you choose to detain and how do you go about proving that they are undocumented? It would likely be done on the basis of (perceived) ethnicity, which brings to mind the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the mistaken deportation of Mexican Americans in the 1950s. You could swoop in and interrogate inmates of jails and prisons, which is probably what would actually happen, but this would not add up to millions of people. The other thing you can do, and the U.S. government has done, is swoop into work places and demand to see papers. This is actually somewhat practical since workers are in fact required to prove they are eligible to work. However, being ineligible to work does not automatically mean your presence in the country is illegal. So now people might be swept up and held in detention camps without due process while courts try to figure out who they are. Even if a legal proceeding determines that an individual is in the country illegally, there is the problem of where to deport that person to (once again, see Hitler). Again, people could be held for years without due process while this plays out.

Finally, if you want to make inflation worse, deporting a huge chunk of the low-wage work force is a great way to do that. It would be much more humane and pro-business to expand work permits and temporary visas to let people in who want to work, but put some restrictions on how long they can stay and who they can bring along. This would be a win for human rights and would be business friendly, which at least traditional Republicans are nominally in favor of. The other side of this coin is to encourage U.S. business investment in Latin America, which would have the twin benefits of reducing migration pressure and producing cheap stuff to import, which also helps to hold down prices.

June U.S. election check-in

I’m sticking with 538’s adjusted poll averages here, which consider poll quality and recency.

STATE2020 RESULTMost Recent 538 Poll Average (as of 6/1/24)
ArizonaBiden +0.4%Trump +4.7% (May 2: Trump +3.2)
GeorgiaBiden +0.3%Trump +5.5% (May 2: Trump +5.9)
WisconsinBiden +0.6%Trump +1.4% (May 2: Trump +2.6%)
North CarolinaTrump +1.3%Trump +6.2% (May 2: Trump +6.4%)
PennsylvaniaBiden +1.2%Trump +2.0% (May 2: Trump +1.8%)
MichiganBiden +2.8%Trump +0.6% (May 2: Trump +1.3%)
NevadaBiden +2.4%Trump +5.9% (May 2: Trump +5.1%)

In May, 1/7 swing states had large (> 1%) movement toward Biden – Wisconsin.

In May, 3/7 swing states had small (< 1%) movement toward Biden – Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan.

In May, 2/7 swing states had small (< 1%) movement toward Trump – Pennsylvania, Nevada.

In May, 1/7 swing states had large (> 1%) movement toward Trump – Arizona.

So it’s hard to say things are trending one way or the other over the past month, and the trend needs to be significantly in Biden’s favor for him to have a good shot in November. As it stands now, the electoral college would be 312 Trump to 226 Biden, a major defeat. If Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were to all break for Biden, it would be Biden 270 to Trump 268.

Donald Trump, peacemaker?

This New Yorker article from August 2022 talks about how members of the military defied orders given by Donald Trump. This included defying arguably illegal orders to intervene in domestic affairs, which I would tend to agree the generals deserve credit for. But the article also praises the military for refusing to unwind and withdraw from foreign conflicts and interventions when they were ordered to. I find this disturbing. Consider:

  • Trump ordered a withdrawal from Syria – twice. Military leadership publicly criticized him, and it was not fully carried out either time. The U.S. is still in Syria today.
  • He floated the idea of pulling out of South Korea – described by Robert Gates as an “absolutely crazy notion”. The U.S. is still in South Korea today.
  • He ordered all troops withdrawn from Somalia. The U.S. is still in Somalia today.
  • He reportedly wanted to withdraw from Iraq, Germany, and all of Africa. He tried to go around the usual military channels to get this done, knowing they would try to block him. They found out, and they blocked him. The U.S. is still in Iraq, Germany, and many countries in Africa today.
  • He wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan immediately. The military slow-walked it throughout his presidency. Finally, he ordered a withdrawal, which was delayed several times and ultimately carried out by Biden. Afghanistan is the one country on the list that the U.S. military is not in today (officially at least), and Biden seems to get most of the credit and blame for the way it went down.

I am not claiming that Trump was some great peace maker, but his instinct does appear to have been to bring U.S. troops home from many of our foreign entanglements. The exception was Iran – he assassinated a senior political and military figure inside Iran, and advocated repeatedly for a military attack on the country, perhaps at the urging of the Israeli government.

Another thing disturbed me about the article – the idea that the military are heroes because they supported the peaceful transition of power and refused to participate in a potential coup attempt during the 2020 election. This is like a protection racket. This suggests the military has some constitutional role in the peaceful transition of power, which to my knowledge they do not. It suggests that a peaceful transition of power occurs because they allow it to occur through their beneficence, when they could choose to step in and prevent it at any time they want. This may be an uncomfortable truth. They seem to have a de facto veto power over our strategic engagements, our foreign policy, our national budget, and our election system. They haven’t taken over because of their “professionalism” or sense of “honor” or “duty”. Or just maybe, there is no need or desire to go to the trouble of governing as long as the civilian government continues to pay them off with a quarter of the federal budget or so.

November 2020 in Review

Only one month to go in this tumultuous year. In current events, the U.S. election was obviously a major historical event, and Covid-19 continued to spiral horribly. But my loyal readers (all 3-10 of you worldwide…) don’t need me to cover current events.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: It seems likely the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump U.S. foreign wars may just grind on endlessly under Biden. Prove us wrong, Joe! (I give Trump a few points for trying to bring troops home over the objections of the military-industrial complex. But in terms of war and peace, this is completely negated and then some by slippage on nuclear proliferation and weapons on his watch.)

Most hopeful story: The massive investment in Covid-19 vaccine development may have major spillover effects to cures for other diseases. This could even be the big acceleration in biotechnology that seems to have been on the horizon for awhile. These technologies also have potential negative and frivolous applications, of course.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: States representing 196 electoral votes have agreed to support the National Popular Vote Compact, in which they would always award their state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Colorado has now voted to do this twice. Unfortunately, the movement has a tough road to get to 270 votes, because of a few big states that would be giving up a lot of power if they agreed to it.

IT’S OVER! CALL IT, YOU PUSSIES!!!

Update: I wrote the post below (and the headline above) around 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 7, 2020. All the major networks called the race around 11:30 a.m.

That was a public service announcement to the news media of the United States of America as I write this on Saturday, November 7, 2020. I did kind of describe the almost exact scenario that happened in my official election prediction post the other day. The only thing is, that was my “unexpected” scenario.

In the “I told you so” category, here is what I said on January 31: “I think the odds favor Biden, a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate.”

It’s over. But Trump voters are going to have a hard time accepting the result. Before I judge too harshly, I think back to 2000 when I had a hard time accepting the result and tried to talk myself into believing the election had been stolen. I didn’t quite succeed – that election in Florida was essentially a tie, and the Bush vs. Gore case was so technical I don’t think anyone without a law degree can come close to understanding it.

You can find election coverage elsewhere, I think I have it out of my system! I’m sure I’ll have some thoughts about policy going forward. I think Biden will basically spend a year trying to deal with coronavirus, followed by three years of trying to restore the Obama center-right, pro-business, pro-war status quo. Republicans politician will convince their followers that these center-right policies are far-left, and the wheel will turn. It will be interesting to see if Biden runs for re-election in four years, and interesting to see who the Republicans put up. Please, for the love of Christ, not Donald J. Trump! But we will see if it is a more mainstream pro-business, pro-war, dog-whistle Republican, or if there is someone out there able to speak to the Trump base but with a bit more finesse and charisma. That’s a scary thought.

Emergency powers and the fall of Weimar

Because somebody had to compare Trump’s use of emergency powers to Hitler. That somebody is the Washington Post. The main difference as I see it is that Hitler and his enablers manufactured an actual crisis, while Trump simply claims there is a crisis with no evidence or even marginally coherent logic to back up the claim. One interesting thing mentioned in the article is that West Germany at first refused to put emergency powers in their constitution, but the U.S. and NATO allies insisted they do so and eventually prevailed. They have never been invoked.

The Weimar constitution, like ours, had classically liberal aspects that guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the right to private property. Yet born in the context of near-civil war conditions between right and left, it also gave the nationally elected president the power to dissolve the parliament and hold a new election within 60 days. Its Article 48 gave the president the power, “if public security and order” were “seriously disturbed or endangered within the German Reich,” to use the armed forces to restore them or suspend “for a while in whole or in part fundamental rights” guaranteed by the Constitution such as freedom of assembly and speech…

Terrorism, racist legislation and the suppression of opposition political parties all found justification in a supposed state of emergency that allowed an end to democratic institutions. Before March 1933, the invocation of emergency clauses of the Weimar constitution had been normalized. The willingness of parliament to cede authority to the executive eased the path for the transition from authoritarian to totalitarian dictatorship and to lawlessness.

Where the comparison holds is previously unacceptable use of emergency powers becoming normalized, which is how Germany took its first steps down the slippery slope.

Obama’s favorite books of 2018

In a Facebook post, Barrack Obama claims to have read 29 books this year. That’s impressive, even if there is some skimming involved. I guess the dude is basically retired and he probably also has some help with childcare. Good for him. No word on whether Donald Trump reread his copy of the collected speeches of Adolf Hitler even once this year.

in praise of Richard Nixon

This post on History News Network makes a case that Richard Nixon looks great if you compare him to Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon did not set out to destroy our foreign policy, and in fact, improved it dramatically with the promotion of détente with the Soviet Union, the overture to the People’s Republic of China, and the nurturing of close ties with America’s allies in NATO. He had a mastery of foreign policy based on great experience from his Vice Presidential years onward for which he is often remembered aside from Watergate. This does not excuse the lengthening of the Vietnam War, or the terrible decisions on foreign policy regarding Chile, Greece, and the issue of the Indo-Pakistan War (which is associated with the creation of the nation of Bangladesh). But Donald Trump has been totally destructive in foreign affairs, alienating our allies in NATO, antagonizing all nations with his protectionist tariff policies, and consorting with authoritarian dictators including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the leaders of such other nations, as the Philippines, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Trump has also worsened relations with Iran and Cuba, based upon extremist right wing influences of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. The Middle East has become much more unstable. The US Foreign Service itself has been badly damaged by the inconsistencies and instability of Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon had many battles and conflicts with the Democratic-controlled Congress during his years in the Presidency, and yet managed to sign into law many signature measures that built upon the accomplishments of the Great Society of his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson. These included the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the enactment of Affirmative Action in employment and education. Donald Trump, in contrast, has been backtracking, destroying environmental protections, undermining consumer agencies, rolling back labor rights, ignoring scientific advancements, and curtailing civil rights. The Republican Party itself has become a willing participant in the destruction of these major domestic accomplishments of Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon also promoted the concept of welfare reform, including the expansion of the Food Stamp Program, and attempted, though he failed, to advance health care reform. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has wished to destroy the health care plan represented by ObamaCare, stranding millions of people without health care, and offering no alternative, in collusion with a Republican Party far to the Right of what it was in Nixon’s time in the Oval Office. Additionally, Richard Nixon expanded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and initiated Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly and disabled, all programs now in danger from Trump and the GOP.

Trump has added to the long-term existential risks to our civilization posed by climate change and nuclear weapons. But so far, we’re incredibly lucky he has not been faced with a major global economic or geopolitical crisis. My apologies to people in Puerto Rico and Yemen, among other places, when I say that. These are horrible crises for limited geographic areas and limited numbers of people (millions, in the case of Yemen) and the U.S. administration has blood on its hands. But think about the world-wide suffering caused by the financial crisis of 2008 or the world at the brink of nuclear war in 1962, and now imagine Trump in charge at those moments. Two years down, two to go.