Monday, September 26, 2016

The Debate: Expectations and Analysis

Written before debate:
Well it is almost time for an event that may draw as many viewers as a Superbowl, and include even more cheap shots...  I am drawn to watching it like one faced with watching some destructive event...  I was thinking I should go to a bar...  It would fun seeing how everyone reacts.

So what do you think will happen?
MP Debates and the American Attention Span
MP What to Expect for the Moderator
MP PBS Bio on the Candidates

Written after the debate:
Did it happen as you expected?
Who won/lost?  Rationale?
Any surprises?
MP I Watched the Debate 3 Times
MP Viewing Event has Full House


John said...

I think I agree with the PBS analyzers that it was a slight win for Clinton, though she was getting pretty vicious / personal with some of her attacks. And Trump had a hard time answering for some of his past foolish comments, however he kept pretty good control.

Of course Clinton doubling down on her tax more invest (ie spend) more scares people like me something terrible.

I am not sure either of them understand that it is the high cost of doing business in America that forces companies to move elsewhere. Especially when they have direct competitors who are already working from there.

And neither of them stated the obvious, if there are good jobs in Mexico...
- fewer people will strive to get into the USA illegally
- they can afford to buy more US products and services
- much better to have Mexico thriving than China...

Sean said...

Last night's debate was a clear win for Hillary Clinton. She adequately explained her policy agenda, and made some effective contrast with her opponent's lack of policy detail.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump repeated the same old long discredited lies. He continued to trumpet his birther crusade, and when asked what he would say to African-Americans offended by his five-year pushing of that lie, he responded "I would say nothing." He doubled-down on his offensive comments to women (and then tripled down on his "Miss Piggy" comments to the beauty pageant contestant this morning), and took on Rosie O'Donnell for some reason. He took pride in the fact that he stiffed people who worked on jobs for him. His answers for not releasing his tax returns are incoherent and he was excited about his low tax burden. He gloated in making money off of the housing crisis. He bragged about his temperament. He threatened to raise Bill Clinton's infidelity when he's a thrice-married guy who cheated on wives #1 and #2. He cited his 10-year old son's computer prowess when talking about cybersecurity. His foreign policy talk is incoherent -- for instance, look at his "first strike" nuclear answer in which he contradicted himself in back-to-back sentences. In short, he looked like a guy not ready for the Presidency.

"And neither of them stated the obvious, if there are good jobs in Mexico..."

So is that an endorsement of NAFTA?

John said...

Please remember I am a free trade advocate, so yes I support NAFTA, TPP, etc

I just hope American citizens will make choices that are good for America. (ie Buy American)

And yes Trump was Trump and Clinton was Clinton... No surprises...

John said...

Remember what we could be looking at if either of these anti-free trade folks get their way.

The bad news is that the US consumers will pay the VAT and it may trigger a trade war. The goods new that it may force Sony to open a US assembly plant if we are a big enough market...

Since 70% of my company's product goes over seas... A trade war would be real bad...

Sean said...

"Remember what we could be looking at if either of these anti-free trade folks get their way."

No, no, no, no. Hillary Clinton is not proposing tariffs. Donald Trump is. There's not going to be a trade war if Hillary Clinton is President. There will be if Donald Trump is President and he lives up to his word.

There's no equivalency here at all.

John said...

Sorry to say, with Clinton shifting to pursue Trump and Sander's anti-free trade voters... I don't know what she has in mind.

She loved TPP until it was politically unwise to do so.

John said...

And assuming she implements these plans. I think we will have other problems.

Pretty much everyone of them will increase the cost of doing business in the USA. Especially if she taxes the job creators and companies to pay for them.

On the upside we may have more capable employees. However they may have a hard time finding a job.

Here are her Labor and workers' rights plans:

"Invest in good-paying jobs. In her first 100 days as president, Hillary will work with both parties to make bold investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, research and technology, clean energy, and small businesses. This will create millions of good-paying jobs, including for labor and other hard-working Americans across the country.

Restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights. Hillary was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Hillary will fight to strengthen the labor movement and to protect worker bargaining power. She will continue to stand up against attacks on collective bargaining and work to strengthen workers’ voices.

Prevent countries like China from abusing global trade rules, and reject trade agreements, like the TPP, that don’t meet high standards. Hillary will strengthen American trade enforcement so we stand up to foreign countries that aren’t playing by the rules—like China is doing right now with steel, and fight for American workers. She will say no to trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that do not meet her high standard of raising wages, creating good-paying jobs, and enhancing our national security.

Raise the minimum wage and strengthen overtime rules. Hillary will work to raise the federal minimum wage to $12, and support state and local efforts to go even higher—including the “Fight for $15.” She also supports the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.

Invest in high-quality training, apprenticeships, and skill-building for workers. Read the fact sheet here.

Encourage companies to invest in workers. Hillary will reward companies that share profits and invest in their workers. She will crack down on companies that move profits overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes and she will make companies that export jobs give back the tax breaks they’ve received in America.

Protect workers from exploitation, including employer misclassification, wage theft, and other forms of exploitation.

Ensure policies meet the challenges families face in the 21st century economy. Hillary will fight for equal pay for women and guarantee paid leave, two changes that are long overdue. And she will provide relief from the rising costs of necessities like child care and housing.

Protect retirement security. After working hard for decades, Americans deserve a secure and comfortable retirement. Hillary will fight to protect retirement security, enhance—not privatize—Social Security, and push back against any efforts to undermine retirement benefits.

To clarify this:

John said...

Please remember that the Government has no money that it does not take from the Private Sector first. Therefore whenever you read the word "invest", that means "tax".

Whenever you see additional benefits, training, higher wage, etc it means building things in USA will increase in cost. Therefore there will be more pressure to automate or out source.

And worse yet, companies in the other countries will not face the same taxes, regulations, laws, etc... So they will be able to build for less, make bigger profits and fund R&D, etc...

That is unless you think the American Consumer is willingly going to pay more for "Made in America"... And to support higher wages, more regulations, more benefits, higher taxes, etc. Based on the last ~40 years I highly doubt it...

John said...

From MP:
"Oh,my! I really wish that Trump supporters would turn the sound on during these debates. Hillary Clinton may have looked smug to those who didn't listen to the way she skewered Trump, time and again, and the way Trump dug himself some deep holes and then kept digging the same holes.

He yelled, interrupted, filibustered over time limits, went off topic in nonsensical sentences, bragged about stuff that most people would find reprehensible. Clinton drew these responses from him, then skewered him on those points.

So sad, that Trump's supporters didn't her HIM in the first real debate of his life. Presidential? I don't think so." Constance

"Many people like myself ignored the he said she said and focused on their plans.

The reality is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for:
- higher taxes & more government programs (ie college, healthcare, etc)
- a continued animosity towards businesses. (is our employers)
- more constraints on our police
- continued support of our status quo public education and welfare systems that are harming many who are trapped in generational poverty

Now I agree that electing Trump carries risks, but electing Clinton carries just as many or more.

I thought it was interesting that neither discussed the failure of inner city education and child raising when they focused on crime rates. Better Parents and Schools = Fewer Crimes." G2A

"I'm curious, why do you think college and healthcare are bad things to fund?
- Should we have a less educated workforce? How will that prepare us to compete in the global economy?
- And should we backtrack on healthcare? Is 40 million an OK number of uninsured folks? 50 million? What about the family-devastating personal bankruptcies from medical bills that were common before ACA? Do you want those to come back?

Then, let's talk about police. Is it OK with you that they shoot first and don't ask questions later (why ask, the suspect is dead?)? What level of police unaccountability and running roughshod over the citizenry is appropriate?

To the last point, more than half of welfare recipients in the US receive benefits for 2 years or less. 34% are on for one year or less. These are people who are often displaced by job loss, medical crisis or divorce. They bounce back and rejoin the workforce. Should we throw them on the street penniless a la Dickens rather than help them get re-established?

I cannot imagine living in the world you seem to want. Go ahead and vote for Trump. His "America is a disaster!" view of things is about as anti-Reagan as I can remember, and I'm 50 years old, so I remember plenty of elections.

His Tarnished City in a Ditch view of our country is unconnected to reality, and the risks he'd inflict on our country untold. I'm pretty sure it's the losing view of our nation, thankfully." Ralf

John said...

And the latest:

"Please remember that the government has no money that it does not first take from businesses or citizens, so when you see the words fund, invest, free, etc it implies raise taxes or take on debt. And if the taxes, mandatory wages/benefits, regulations, etc increase, so does the cost of doing business in America. Now if the American consumers are willing to pay significantly more for higher cost high domestic content products and services to offset this, everything is good. Unfortunately the past 50 years indicates that they are not.

So yes as a life long learner I agree that education is important. The tax payers already fund ~50% of the higher ed costs in the country, I think the students should have some skin in the game since they will benefit from the learning.

I am indifferent to ACA, it helped some people and hurt others. Universal healthcare just doubles down on this. And as noted above people who benefit the most from the healthcare should be paying for it. Not some distant tax payers.

If people focused as much on straightening out their communities as they are on blaming the police officers I would be happy. Unfortunately they seem more interested in blaming the officers instead of reducing the number of single parent households, ensuring parents are held accountable for their child's learning and behavior, fixing the school system, etc. If this happens, generational poverty, crime and accidental shootings will all drop off the charts. However it is hard to look in the mirror, and much easier to look elsewhere.

Here are some public assistance stats. What worries me the most is that 50+ yrs and many many trillions of dollars there are as many poor as ever. We seem to be losing the war and something needs to change.
Census Numbers

Just curious, often people complain about how terrible things are in the inner city. (ie poor schools, high crime, high unemployment, racial inequality, businesses leaving those communities, poor city services, aggress police, etc) Why is it different when Trump says it?" G2A

Laurie said...

"Now I agree that electing Trump carries risks, but electing Clinton carries just as many or more."

you always ignore REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. Realistically Hillary will be able to implement none of her agenda. Your above statement is really too dumb to take the time to argue against. But you go ahead and make the case the Hillary is super risky. Be sure to include why you think the GOP will go along with her policies.

John said...

Okay, let's say that Hillary's inner "socialist" will be contained by the Big Bad House.

Why is Hillary making all of these promises that she will not be allowed to implement?

Shouldn't she be honest with her voters and explain this reality?

Laurie said...

nobody ever explains the realities of working with congress. It is just not done. Must not be smart campaigning. Do you think congress will go along with any part of her agenda that involves raising taxes or raising spending. Hillary is the status quo safe choice.

Trump is total wild card. Didn't his answers on foreign policy during the debate worry you quite a lot about his ability to be a world leader? I am starting to have real anxiety about the possibility that he could win.

Anonymous said...

Why is Hillary making all of these promises that she will not be allowed to implement?

We don't know that, and it whether or not she is allowed to implement her promises is up to us.

In executive elections in America, we seem to grant candidates the benefit of an assumption that we will elect a legislature that will help the candidates implement the promises they make.


Anonymous said...

Shouldn't she be honest with her voters and explain this reality?

If this is a reality, let her opponents explain it, and let them do it in public, not in Washington back rooms in the dark of night. Let Erik Paulsen, for example, put in his campaign commercials, that it his intent, once elected, to render your vote for president meaningless. Let him proclaim that he will do everything in his power to obstruct the president you elected from keeping the promises he or she made for purely political reasons. Let him say elect me and I will prevent a president from acting just so I can campaign two and four years from on the claim the president has done nothing while in addition holding him or her responsible for every negative thing that happens on his or her watch. If Hillary is elected, Paulsen also can put it in his commercials how he will spend the next four years absorbed in meaningless investigations about emails, and Whitewater, and whether Miss Universe of 1996 really did gain a lot of weight.


John said...

Actually Eric's Web Site kind of does say that, and it does not promise specific huge changes that will never happen..

I guess my point is that Laurie is saying that a "just right of center" moderate like me should vote for Clinton because it is a vote for the status quo. And yet Clinton's web site promotes tons of Far Left promises and programs.

I just wonder if she could get more actual voters to show up and vote for her if she was not promoting Bernie's Democratic Socialist agenda. It may make many voters like me much less nervous.

Her we are going "tax the successful to grow government control and give to the unsuccessful" preaching goes against the core of many of us capitalistic savers/ investors. However it probably does resonate well with the socialistic spenders/ rose smellers.

John said...

By the way, the MP comments came from here.

John said...

I add that link and some others to the original post.

Sean said...

I think it's fascinating that you talk about Trump being so much better than Clinton, yet there's really no basis to say that.

Trump says he going to improve our infrastructure, just like Clinton has. The difference: Clinton has a plan to do so. Trump says he's going to do so, but has no plan to pay for it and he's already in the hole by several hundred billion a year based on his tax cut.

Trump has proposed a paid family leave plan. It's somewhat less generous than Hillary's, but it's still there. (The structure of Trump's plan also may be unconstitutional, BTW.)

Trump isn't changing entitlements. And he's proposed no changes to the other parts of the safety net. Or education.

Trump has made vague promises about dramatically cutting regulation without detailing any specifics about what regulations he would cut. One suspects that this is the sort of promise that will largely vanish (save a notable exception here and there so he can say he's done something) should he be elected.

And, let's not forget all of Mr. Trump's personal and legal peccadilloes. For all your blathering about values and purpose, voting for Trump is just another example of how you're just a Republican hack who masquerades as a "moderate".

John said...

Please remember that I don't like either of them.

In ~5 weeks I will try to figure out which of them is the lesser of the 2 evils. And then mark a box.

The reality is that Clinton is running on a platform of tax, grow government, freebies for many, pardoning illegals & spend, things that I see as harmful to the key aspects of America that make it the global leader in so many ways. (ie feed entitlement mentality / starve effort invest succeed mentality)

As for "Trump Gone Wild", I just don't see it happening given the governmental constraints / laws that will tie his hands.

Sean said...

"grow government"

Which candidate in this race has promised a "deportation force" that will patrol our neighborhoods?

"freebies for many"

You just like that Donald Trump is giving the freebies to the "right" people.


Trump has promised hundreds of billions in new spending (infrastructure, paid leave, military) and has promised gigantic tax cuts.

You can keep rationalizing and explaining it away all you want, but the truth is out there.

John said...

Your concerns that Trump and the Conservatives will balloon the national debt even further is unfortunately a very real concern of mine. To bad we don't have a candidate who wants to:

- keep taxes static except for closing the carried interest loop hole and increasing the FICA contribution percentage to stabilize SS/Medicare. (ie premiums aligned with benefits)

- fix spending in place until we start paying down the national debt (ie rely on GDP and forcing public employee systems to become more effective / efficient)

jerrye92002 said...

I think everyone is making one of two mistakes about a Trump presidency, basing their speculation on a) what Democrats or their sycophants in the media tell us he will do, or b) trying to divine from his inexact statements and unscripted speaking style what he will do. I choose to look at what we know about his management style-- collaborative and common-sense-- and infer from that he will work with the Republicans in Congress (we hope) to fill in the details and actually solve problems rather than pursue some ideological fantasyland and make "things" worse.

Oh, and Laurie? If Hillary wins, she will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and Republicans in Congress will be powerless to stop her. That alone is enough to get me to vote against her. (unless you believe she will appoint another Scalia, of course)

Sean said...

"If Hillary wins, she will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and Republicans in Congress will be powerless to stop her. "

Well, they've made their own bed on that one. They should have taken Obama's generous offer of moderate and old Merrick Garland. Instead, they bet on Trump, and if they lose they're going to have to take their medicine.

John said...

How do we know this?

"his management style-- collaborative and common-sense"

Given the challenge he has had keeping campaign staff, the collaborative part seems hard to believe.

Anonymous said...

"I guess my point is that Laurie is saying that a "just right of center" moderate like me should vote for Clinton because it is a vote for the status quo."

I do think that's largely true. The Clinton's are not boat rockers which is why Hillary has such strong support from the Democratic establishment and such little enthusiasm from the Democratic rank and file.

Trump is the Ventura candidate in the race, appealing to those who vaguely feel something is wrong but no very clear idea as to what it is and no idea at all as to how to change it.

Since we define government growth in terms of expenditures, government will continue to grow since what we spend money on, mainly the aging of the population, will continue to grow. Note that even Donald Trump who wants to protect Social Security and provide universal health care, has proposed nothing at all to stop this trend.


Sean said...

Yep, this sounds like the sort of guy we need in the White House:

"There were early efforts to run a more standard form of general election debate-prep camp, led by Roger Ailes, the ousted Fox News chief, at Mr. Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, N.J. But Mr. Trump found it hard to focus during those meetings, according to multiple people briefed on the process who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. That left Mr. Ailes, who at the time was deeply distracted by his removal from Fox and the news media reports surrounding it, discussing his own problems as well as recounting political war stories, according to two people present for the sessions."

New Debate Strategy for Donald Trump: Practice, Practice, Practice

Sean said...

I meant to go back to this comment: "though she was getting pretty vicious / personal with some of her attacks". I'm wondering which comments met this criteria?

Sean said...

Here's a though experiment for you: why do Republicans talk so differently about problems in urban African-American communities and struggling blue-collar white communities? Even though these communities are now suffering many of the same problems for the very same reasons. Opioid addiction today is essentially white crack, except 30 years ago, local TV stations didn't run weepy sweeps month stories about the African-American families devastated by that epidemic.

John said...

One that I found vicious personal or maybe just inappropriate / pointless was when she called him a racist. Then offered up some broad scope Justice Dept case from the early 1970's as evidence... I know I have learned / changed massively since I was ~25 years old, I am pretty sure Trump has also. How about some proof from the past ~10 - 15 years.

The other thing is that both Clinton and Angie Craig are taking advantage of using snippets out of context and then claiming that the comments made by Trump and Jason Lewis during their time as entertainers somehow prove they are such and such, or that they believe such and such... It is a good thing I am not running for office. Either the Conservatives or Liberals would find it easy to smear me for something.

John said...

I know you want to see the world in Black and White, however I think Poor and Not Poor is how the world really works.

Crack from what I know was a poor persons drug that didn't touch many middle or wealthy families. Kind of like Meth today. The media and politicians concern themselves with the majorities issues. (ie customers / voters) Now Opioids and Prescription drug addictions are hitting the majority of the target market and therefore they make the news.

I mean when many famous people die from an Opioid overdose, the media and politicians notice. And if they have relatives who are addicted or dies, they notice. When a poor White person dies from a Meth addiction, no one covers it.

So I would say that actually meth is the poor white man's crack... And I don't see anyone getting weepy eyed over meth labs and their victims. That is unless you see shows that glamorize meth dealers as getting weepy.

Laurie said...

about evidence that Trump is racist- have you listened to Trump campaign over the past year? I don't think you would know racism if it hit you upside the head. I found the Trump comment Hillary brought up right at the end of the debate very telling - Miss housekeeping- that is a very ugly combination of racism and sexism.

So what do you think of Trump's debate performance and how the campaign is spinning now two days later. Boy are they trashing Trump on MSNBC tonight. I've been too busy to follow political news online today.

Laurie said...

Trump’s ingrained racism

John said...

It was an interesting opinion piece. I found this interesting.

"Donald Trump told us last month what he thinks of African Americans: “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed — what the hell do you have to lose?” In other words, you say “African American,” he thinks poor, uneducated, violent (our cities are a war zone!) and unproductive. If that is not garden-variety racism, we are hard pressed to think that anything short of David Duke and the KKK — which support him — meets the definition."

I am fascinated by how the author pulled that paraphrase out of that comment...

John said...

I mean Liberals are constantly saying that it is unfair that minorities are forced to live in communities with high crime, poor schools, high unemployment, a shrinking number of businesses, etc... In fact they use it as proof that we have rampant racism in the USA.

Does this mean that all Liberals are racists? Do they all think Black folk are dumb, lazy, etc? What am I missing here?

jerrye92002 said...

Let me get this straight: telling the absolute factual truth about life in the "black community" is racist? Suggesting that the blame be placed on Democrats who rely on the black vote yet have no proposals to actually correct the situation is racist? What the heck kind of topsy-turvy world do we live in??? Perhaps Trump's national campaign communications director should be asked to address that. She's a black woman.

And if you watched the convention, you heard women and blacks from the Trump organization talk about his "collaborative" management style and real concern for people, regardless of their "demographic." Her Majesty doesn't like anybody.

Sean said...

When crack ravaged urban (largely African-American) neighborhoods, we raised mandatory minimums, gave crack harsher sentences than powder cocaine, instituted police task forces, and lectured blacks about their culture.

Where has that been during the opioid crisis? Why aren't we lecturing suburbanites and rural folks about their culture? Where are the raids of doctors who are handing our bogus prescriptions? What's different?

(Listen, I think the response to opioids makes sense -- we should be looking more at treatment than militarization and jail. But I think this response is being driven by far more than just its efficacy -- white America wouldn't accept the sort of treatment we gave to those black neighborhoods.)

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, I can't help but see that as a racist comment. You are prejudging how a certain situation would be handled based on the race of those involved. I also think you are missing an essential difference, which is that the crack "business" was perpetrated by gangsters and created a wave of crime in response, whereas the opioids are being moved mostly through the existing medical system and "ruining" people that can basically afford the cost of their addiction. Not saying you aren't correct, just that whatever the "right" solution is should be determined by the nature of the problem, not the race of the "willing victims."

Sean said...

At the debate, Trump proposed putting "stop and frisk" on the streets of Chicago, which is the unconstitutional stopping of dark-skinned folks (in NYC, over 80% of stops were blacks and Latinos) with a standard less than probable cause (nearly 90% of such stops ended up with no convictions). Try pulling that on white dudes in Maple Grove and see how long people put up with it.

John said...

And you take it back to Race again...

The reality is that the "Dude" driving the BMW 650 in Maple Grove is likely wealthy and connected whether he is White, Black or Latino... Police know better to screw with wealthy people who have the time and money to make their lives difficult.

This is a wealth/ lifestyle issue more so than a race issue.

Remember: my daughter's love their White, Black, Filipino, Indian, etc friends dearly... But they avoid the "ghetto kids" no matter their color.

John said...

Interesting and Related

Sean said...

The issue with crack is that it is treated different than powder cocaine when it's just two forms of the same thing. If you're asking me if the mandatory minimums are also too high for meth, yes, I'd be inclined to agree.

"This is a wealth/ lifestyle issue more so than a race issue."

No, it's not. The NYPD systematically instructed officers to target blacks and Latinos. Seriously, go back and look at the history of the NYPD under Giuliani and Bloomberg and the stop-and-frisk, broken windows policing methodology -- there's tons of racism there.

jerrye92002 said...

If I told you that 80% of the crime in the city was committed by redheads, what would you as a police chief do? Would you make certain that you paid a lot of attention to blonds and brunettes just to be "fair"? You're trying to argue the theory that "disparate impact" is a matter of racism when the correct interpretation could as easily be called "disparate contribution" to the problem. If I'm trying to stop muggings, don't I patrol those streets where most muggings occur? Or is that "unfairly targeting" muggers?

Anonymous said...

If I told you that 80% of the crime in the city was committed by redheads, what would you as a police chief do?

What percentage of redheads commit crimes? 80%? 1%?

Men commit virtually all violent street crimes. Is that a reason why men should be stopped and frisked routinely as they walk down the street? If cops did do that all day long, would they be missing something else?


jerrye92002 said...

In our example, the percentage of redheads committing crimes approaches 50%. So while it is reasonable to go fishing in a large lake where there are 10,000 walleye, it is a lot easier to catch fish in a small farm pond where there are 100.

Now I think that the answer is to employ, as courts have ruled, some "reasonable suspicion" criteria that are unfortunately subjective. I don't think we should stop the basic idea of "stop and frisk" which is, honestly IMHO, to harass criminals as they go about their day.