As readers of this site know, I both predicted and supported
Hillary Clinton’s choice of Tim Kaine to be her vice
presidential running mate. Moderate in his record, genial
and likable, I thought it was a very good match.
The public response to Mr. Kaine’s performance in last night’s
only televised vice presidential debate in Virginia indicates
that Mr. Kaine and his advisers made a serious mistake in his
debate manner, that is, his constant and usually annoying
interruptions of his opponent Mike Pence.
I also thought Mr. Pence was a good choice by Donald Trump
as his running mate, and the Indiana governor fulfilled that
with a steady and calm demeanor in the debate.
Reasonable arguments can be made that each of the vice
presidential nominees had good arguments on the issues that
strengthened them with their respective political bases, but a
national TV debate, especially when there is only one, is mostly
about visceral impression. The overwhelming consensus, even
among many liberal media commentators, was that Mr. Pence
won the evening.
What Mr. Kaine had most to offer supporters of Mrs. Clinton
was that, in addition to competency for the job, he was likable,
something his running mate was not. After last night’s debate,
the Democrats now have a ticket with two persons who could
be perceived as less than likable. Mr. Trump is also perceived
negatively by many voters, but now he could be perceived as
someone with not only a competent, but a likable running mate.
This will not have a huge impact on the final vote. The second
person on a national ticket rarely does. But it does give Mr.
Trump a boost at a time when he really needs it, and gives him
an instructive model for his own approach to his upcoming
second debate with Mrs. Clinton.
In their first debate, both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton
frequently interrupted each other, and I think that such a tactic
dos not appeal to most undecided voters --- the voters who
now count the most to who wins on November 8.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Monday, October 3, 2016
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: R U Robot?
With the slow, but increasing, realization that we, the human
race, are on the verge of replacing ourselves with machines,
it is perhaps of special interest to go back to the earliest
moments when this profound insight first appeared in our
consciousnesses.
Perhaps the most notable of these took place just after World
War I when a young Czech playwright/novelist named Karel
Capek wrote a play titled mysteriously “R.U.R.” that
premiered in a Prague theater, and quickly became a
worldwide sensation.
A bit of history: Czechoslovakia had long been part of the
Austro-Hungarian empire in Europe, but had its own historic
culture and language. After World War I, it finally received its
own independence as a combination of Bohemia and
Slovakia, two ancient European small states which had
emerged from the Dark Ages. The George Washington of
Czechoslovakia was Tomas Masaryk, a brilliant democratic
and humanist figure who was the small nation’s first president.
Incredibly rich in folklore and culture, but small in population
(less than 10 million), the Republic of Czechoslovakia
continued as a center of art and innovation on the newly
liberated European landscape. Composers such as Antonin
Dvorak, Bedrich Smetana and Leos Janacek; writers such as
Rainer Maria Rilke and Franz Kafka remain giants today in
world culture. The word “bohemian” has become a word in
English because it captured so aptly the subculture of Western
artistic life of the 19th and 20th centuries.
However, Czechoslovakia and its writer Karel Capek also
added a new word to English (and virtually all other world
languages) which applies importantly to the 21st century.
The play title “R.U.R.” stands for Rossum’s Universal Robots.
In Czech, “rossum” means “reason,” and “robot” means
“drudgery.” The word robot has its origins in the Czech word
for “slave.” Capek’s play is the very first appearance anywhere
of the word robot (the playwright gave credit to the actual
invention of the word to his writer brother Josef.)
Today, “robotics” has become a central term in the evolution
of human activity. The word robot now stands for virtually all
machines created to do the work of humans. In the 1920’s,
robots were concepts of the future. Today, they are being devised
and put to work everywhere in virtually all human activities as
they replace human workers.
Since the early 1920’s, science fiction writers and films have
portrayed increasingly sympathetic or threatening versions of
robots. The apotheosis of the former were lovable characters in
Star Wars. More ominous robots, however, have appeared in
books and films as a force that brutally takes over the human
race and eliminates or enslaves it.
An even newer and related technology is artificial intelligence or
AI. This has presented itself less physically as robotic machines
and more as hyper-thinking entities. Curiously, Capek’s robots
in 1920 were more a premonition of AI than of robotics. In his
play, the robots are actually artificially created thinking beings,
more like “cyborgs” or “androids.” Capek presciently also
foresees the robotic revolution producing more goods at much
lower prices, as well as its disrupting human society.
Karel Capek was one of the world’s great futurists. A thinker
and philosopher, as well as a playwright and novelist, he was
during his short life on the cutting edge of what was then
anticipated as the future of humanity. His play “R.U.R.” is rarely
performed today, and science fiction writers such as Isaac
Asimov have criticized it as a bad play because it ends on an
optimistic note (the last surviving human being in the play turns
over the world to two robots, calling them “Adam” and “Eve”).
But we need to remember that tragic time. Czechoslovakia, it
turned out, would only exist for 20 years. Its allies, Britain and
France, turned it over to Hitler without a fight at Munich in a
notorious betrayal. Capek himself, only 48, died from pneumonia
on Christmas Day, 1938 --- only weeks after his beloved republic
was sold out by Neville Chamberlain and his cohorts. Many
believe he actually died from his broken heart sensing the
holocaust that was to come. (His brother Josef, the man who
actually invented the word “robot,” perished in a concentration
camp shortly afterwards.)
After World War II, Czechoslovakia traded the beast of Hitlerian
fascism for the beast of Soviet communism. Only in 1990, as the
Soviet Union was crumbling, was an independent, democratic
Czechoslovakia revived. It soon was divided into two separate
nations, The Czech Republic and Slovakia. Prague today is an
exciting cultural center of the new Europe.
In that extraordinary time and in that extraordinary place,
Karel Capek had a remarkable vision of the future, and he chose
to see it with hope and promise. Only about a decade after
putting robots into the human vocabulary, he was faced with one
of the most unspeakable depravities human beings ever created,
a depravity made solely by human evil with no assistance from
robotics.
Today, with robots and AI about to replace a major part of all
human work, and change forever how we live, the future is
also threatened by new and malign human frailties. Who can
fault the futurist Karel Capek for his timeless statement of hope
and survival?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
race, are on the verge of replacing ourselves with machines,
it is perhaps of special interest to go back to the earliest
moments when this profound insight first appeared in our
consciousnesses.
Perhaps the most notable of these took place just after World
War I when a young Czech playwright/novelist named Karel
Capek wrote a play titled mysteriously “R.U.R.” that
premiered in a Prague theater, and quickly became a
worldwide sensation.
A bit of history: Czechoslovakia had long been part of the
Austro-Hungarian empire in Europe, but had its own historic
culture and language. After World War I, it finally received its
own independence as a combination of Bohemia and
Slovakia, two ancient European small states which had
emerged from the Dark Ages. The George Washington of
Czechoslovakia was Tomas Masaryk, a brilliant democratic
and humanist figure who was the small nation’s first president.
Incredibly rich in folklore and culture, but small in population
(less than 10 million), the Republic of Czechoslovakia
continued as a center of art and innovation on the newly
liberated European landscape. Composers such as Antonin
Dvorak, Bedrich Smetana and Leos Janacek; writers such as
Rainer Maria Rilke and Franz Kafka remain giants today in
world culture. The word “bohemian” has become a word in
English because it captured so aptly the subculture of Western
artistic life of the 19th and 20th centuries.
However, Czechoslovakia and its writer Karel Capek also
added a new word to English (and virtually all other world
languages) which applies importantly to the 21st century.
The play title “R.U.R.” stands for Rossum’s Universal Robots.
In Czech, “rossum” means “reason,” and “robot” means
“drudgery.” The word robot has its origins in the Czech word
for “slave.” Capek’s play is the very first appearance anywhere
of the word robot (the playwright gave credit to the actual
invention of the word to his writer brother Josef.)
Today, “robotics” has become a central term in the evolution
of human activity. The word robot now stands for virtually all
machines created to do the work of humans. In the 1920’s,
robots were concepts of the future. Today, they are being devised
and put to work everywhere in virtually all human activities as
they replace human workers.
Since the early 1920’s, science fiction writers and films have
portrayed increasingly sympathetic or threatening versions of
robots. The apotheosis of the former were lovable characters in
Star Wars. More ominous robots, however, have appeared in
books and films as a force that brutally takes over the human
race and eliminates or enslaves it.
An even newer and related technology is artificial intelligence or
AI. This has presented itself less physically as robotic machines
and more as hyper-thinking entities. Curiously, Capek’s robots
in 1920 were more a premonition of AI than of robotics. In his
play, the robots are actually artificially created thinking beings,
more like “cyborgs” or “androids.” Capek presciently also
foresees the robotic revolution producing more goods at much
lower prices, as well as its disrupting human society.
Karel Capek was one of the world’s great futurists. A thinker
and philosopher, as well as a playwright and novelist, he was
during his short life on the cutting edge of what was then
anticipated as the future of humanity. His play “R.U.R.” is rarely
performed today, and science fiction writers such as Isaac
Asimov have criticized it as a bad play because it ends on an
optimistic note (the last surviving human being in the play turns
over the world to two robots, calling them “Adam” and “Eve”).
But we need to remember that tragic time. Czechoslovakia, it
turned out, would only exist for 20 years. Its allies, Britain and
France, turned it over to Hitler without a fight at Munich in a
notorious betrayal. Capek himself, only 48, died from pneumonia
on Christmas Day, 1938 --- only weeks after his beloved republic
was sold out by Neville Chamberlain and his cohorts. Many
believe he actually died from his broken heart sensing the
holocaust that was to come. (His brother Josef, the man who
actually invented the word “robot,” perished in a concentration
camp shortly afterwards.)
After World War II, Czechoslovakia traded the beast of Hitlerian
fascism for the beast of Soviet communism. Only in 1990, as the
Soviet Union was crumbling, was an independent, democratic
Czechoslovakia revived. It soon was divided into two separate
nations, The Czech Republic and Slovakia. Prague today is an
exciting cultural center of the new Europe.
In that extraordinary time and in that extraordinary place,
Karel Capek had a remarkable vision of the future, and he chose
to see it with hope and promise. Only about a decade after
putting robots into the human vocabulary, he was faced with one
of the most unspeakable depravities human beings ever created,
a depravity made solely by human evil with no assistance from
robotics.
Today, with robots and AI about to replace a major part of all
human work, and change forever how we live, the future is
also threatened by new and malign human frailties. Who can
fault the futurist Karel Capek for his timeless statement of hope
and survival?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Minnesota Re-Run
The Republican majority has grown large enough, most
would agree, that there are very few seats the GOP could
pick up in 2016, and even should Republicans win the
presidential election, they are unlikely to make net gains
in either house of the next Congress.
There are some exceptions to this, and one of the most
notable could take place in the remote northern Minnesota
border district known popularly as “The Range.”
That is the Minnesota 8th congressional district, and the
race is a re-run of the one in 2014 between incumbent
Democrat (in Minnesota called the Democratic-Farmer-
Labor Party or DFL) Rick Nolan, 72, and businessman
Stewart Mills. 44.
In 2014, the contest was very close, with incumbent Nolan
narrowly winning only by about 3000 votes (about 1%)
over his first-time challenger. The political circumstances
in MN-8 in 2016 are quite different, however, and could
produce an upset in November.
The Iron Range is historically an ethnic working class
district in northeastern Minnesota. Central European and
Scandinavian early settlers supplied the backbone of the
historic iron mining industry which sent the valuable ore
by ship and rail to refining and smelting centers to the
east. Early Finnish immigrants were perhaps the most
radical, and populism remains part of the 8th district’s
political character, but this political personality is changing.
After World War II, the Minnesota 8th district elected and
re-elected DFLer John Blatnik to Congress for 14 terms, and
when he retired, his former chief aide James Oberstar took
the seat. In these post-war years, the 8th district supplied the
state Democratic Party (DFL) with large and reliable
majorities which, added with those in the increasingly liberal
“Twin Cities” of St. Paul and Minneapolis, supplied enough
votes to overcome Republican majorities in the suburbs and
outstate. One of those who had created the DFL in 1944 was
Hubert Humphrey who first became mayor of Minneapolis
and then in 1948 a U.S. senator. With several former aides who
themselves ran for elected office, including Walter Mondale,
Mr. Humphrey presided over several decades of liberal
hegemony in the state.
That political dominance ended in 1978 when Republicans
swept the top state wide races in upset wins for governor and
two U.S. senate seats (the rare occasion of two senate seats in
the same cycle was precipitated by Mr. Mondale’s election to
the vice presidency and Mr. Humphrey’s death). In spite of this
“Minnesota massacre” as it became known, the 8th district
and the two Twin City districts remained reliably DFL.
While the Twin City metro area was seeing significant growth,
however, environmental issues and foreign competition had
decimated the iron mining area, and the Range suffered
steady and dramatic population loss. The district’s largest city,
the Lake Superior port of Duluth, maintained its urban
liberalism, but some of the blue collar, Catholic, pro-life
and conservative voters on the Range found themselves at
increasing political distance from the significantly more
liberal and pro-choice DFL voters in the rest of the state.
In 2010, 18-term, aging incumbent Oberstar was defeated by
GOP challenger Chip Cravaack in a stunning upset, but the
DFL won the seat back in the 2012 presidential year with former
Congressman Rick Nolan, a native of the district who had
moved to southern Minnesota, and won a seat there for three
terms from 1975 to 1981. At that point, Mr. Nolan retired, and
went into private business. In a rare example of a political
career revival, he then emerged in 2012 after 30 years in
private life, to resume a seat in Congress.
Minnesota’s 8th district is one of those traditional Democratic
areas which is more socially conservative and traditionalist
than most liberal urban districts throughout the U.S. Like
similar districts along the Great Lakes “rust belt,” it is a region
altered by departing manufacturing and mining industries,
rapidly changing demographics, and recent redistricting
boundaries.
(In fact, this might be one of the last elections in the 8th district.
The state is likely to lose one congressional seat in the 2020
census, and this would probably redraw northern Minnesota
into one district, combining much of what are now the 7th and
8th districts.)
Mr. Nolan had several advantages in his first re-election in
He was the incumbent, the district was still rated D+3,
Mr. Mills had not run for office previously, and the DFLer
had a superior GOTV effort, supported by incumbent DFL
gubernatorial and U.S. senate candidates running statewide
against relatively weak Republican opponents. Mr. Nolan also
had the resource of liberal national PACs which poured in
massive funds for advertising into the race at the very end.
This cycle Congressman Nolan remains the incumbent, but
his opponent has a hard-fought previous campaign under his
belt. Unlike 2014, when Mr. Mills depended primarily on the
state party for his GOTV, the challenger has his own major
effort underway. There are no DFL statewide candidates
running in 2016, and the Democratic presidential nominee,
usually a major asset in this race, trails Donald Trump in the
8th district. Mr. Mills family business was sold in the past year,
and he has access to virtually unlimited personal campaign
funds. Conservative PACs seem likely to match liberal PAC
funding this cycle in this race, and at least one private poll
reportedly now rates the district R+1. In any event, the
Republican candidate will not likely be caught by surprise by
any last-minute push by his DFL opponent as he was in 2014.
Mr. Nolan does have the new advantage this cycle, however, of
having no third party candidate on the ballot to drain votes
from his candidacy. In an interview at the annual state DFL
convention in Minneapolis, Mr. Nolan expressed his relief
that no Green Party candidate was running in 2016. In 2014,
the Green Party candidate, running against the incumbent’s
environmental record, received more than 11,000 votes or 4%
of the total cast. Prior to the Democratic national convention,
Mr. Nolan endorsed and supported the presidential candidacy
of Bernie Sanders (who is much more popular in the area
among DFLers than Hillary Clinton).
Environmental issues highlight one of the challenges that face
Mr. Nolan in the district. Attempts to revive the mining industry,
and thus re-employ many out-of-work miners on the Range,
bring environmentalists and labor unions into open conflict in
this part of the state. Normally, these two groups form part of
the liberal party’s base, but in this northeastern district, they
are at odds. Mr. Nolan has tried very hard to walk the fine line
between them, but as has happened in coal country in
southeastern Ohio, West Virginia and western Pennsylvania,
once large Democratic majorities now vote heavily Republican.
Another handicap for Mr. Nolan is his “F” rating from the
National Rifle Association (NRA). Mr. Mills has been endorsed by
the NRA, and is an enthusiastic hunter. Mr. Nolan also is a hunter,
and has been running TV ads proclaiming this, but his long-time
opposition to many NRA issues cuts into his support in the rural
part of the district.
One of first-time candidate Mills’ novelties last cycle was that he
was a conservative with long hair. This year, the Republican has
cut his hair, and the change seems to be working to his advantage.
A member of prominent business family in the district, Mills has
emerged as a folksy campaigner, and an articulate critic of the
Obama administration economic policies, including his strong
opposition to Obamacare (which as a businessman first drew
him into the congressional race two years ago). Mr. Mills also has
been a vocal critic of the Obama Iran deal which Mr. Nolan
voted for, and of the administration’s reduction of the military
and its foreign policy in the Middle East.
Rick Nolan will likely receive more votes in the 8th district than
Hillary Clinton, and while there are no DFL statewide candidates
to help him, the liberal party’s GOTV organization, a legacy of
the late DFL Senator Paul Wellstone, remains one of the most
effective in the nation. Mr. Nolan is an experienced campaigner,
but he faces a much tougher race this cycle than in the past two.
Having once demonstrated that a second political life is
possible in Minnesota, Rick Nolan, however, could discover in
2016 that even political re-runs, unlike TV re-runs, do not play
indefinitely, and can run out of time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
would agree, that there are very few seats the GOP could
pick up in 2016, and even should Republicans win the
presidential election, they are unlikely to make net gains
in either house of the next Congress.
There are some exceptions to this, and one of the most
notable could take place in the remote northern Minnesota
border district known popularly as “The Range.”
That is the Minnesota 8th congressional district, and the
race is a re-run of the one in 2014 between incumbent
Democrat (in Minnesota called the Democratic-Farmer-
Labor Party or DFL) Rick Nolan, 72, and businessman
Stewart Mills. 44.
In 2014, the contest was very close, with incumbent Nolan
narrowly winning only by about 3000 votes (about 1%)
over his first-time challenger. The political circumstances
in MN-8 in 2016 are quite different, however, and could
produce an upset in November.
The Iron Range is historically an ethnic working class
district in northeastern Minnesota. Central European and
Scandinavian early settlers supplied the backbone of the
historic iron mining industry which sent the valuable ore
by ship and rail to refining and smelting centers to the
east. Early Finnish immigrants were perhaps the most
radical, and populism remains part of the 8th district’s
political character, but this political personality is changing.
After World War II, the Minnesota 8th district elected and
re-elected DFLer John Blatnik to Congress for 14 terms, and
when he retired, his former chief aide James Oberstar took
the seat. In these post-war years, the 8th district supplied the
state Democratic Party (DFL) with large and reliable
majorities which, added with those in the increasingly liberal
“Twin Cities” of St. Paul and Minneapolis, supplied enough
votes to overcome Republican majorities in the suburbs and
outstate. One of those who had created the DFL in 1944 was
Hubert Humphrey who first became mayor of Minneapolis
and then in 1948 a U.S. senator. With several former aides who
themselves ran for elected office, including Walter Mondale,
Mr. Humphrey presided over several decades of liberal
hegemony in the state.
That political dominance ended in 1978 when Republicans
swept the top state wide races in upset wins for governor and
two U.S. senate seats (the rare occasion of two senate seats in
the same cycle was precipitated by Mr. Mondale’s election to
the vice presidency and Mr. Humphrey’s death). In spite of this
“Minnesota massacre” as it became known, the 8th district
and the two Twin City districts remained reliably DFL.
While the Twin City metro area was seeing significant growth,
however, environmental issues and foreign competition had
decimated the iron mining area, and the Range suffered
steady and dramatic population loss. The district’s largest city,
the Lake Superior port of Duluth, maintained its urban
liberalism, but some of the blue collar, Catholic, pro-life
and conservative voters on the Range found themselves at
increasing political distance from the significantly more
liberal and pro-choice DFL voters in the rest of the state.
In 2010, 18-term, aging incumbent Oberstar was defeated by
GOP challenger Chip Cravaack in a stunning upset, but the
DFL won the seat back in the 2012 presidential year with former
Congressman Rick Nolan, a native of the district who had
moved to southern Minnesota, and won a seat there for three
terms from 1975 to 1981. At that point, Mr. Nolan retired, and
went into private business. In a rare example of a political
career revival, he then emerged in 2012 after 30 years in
private life, to resume a seat in Congress.
Minnesota’s 8th district is one of those traditional Democratic
areas which is more socially conservative and traditionalist
than most liberal urban districts throughout the U.S. Like
similar districts along the Great Lakes “rust belt,” it is a region
altered by departing manufacturing and mining industries,
rapidly changing demographics, and recent redistricting
boundaries.
(In fact, this might be one of the last elections in the 8th district.
The state is likely to lose one congressional seat in the 2020
census, and this would probably redraw northern Minnesota
into one district, combining much of what are now the 7th and
8th districts.)
Mr. Nolan had several advantages in his first re-election in
He was the incumbent, the district was still rated D+3,
Mr. Mills had not run for office previously, and the DFLer
had a superior GOTV effort, supported by incumbent DFL
gubernatorial and U.S. senate candidates running statewide
against relatively weak Republican opponents. Mr. Nolan also
had the resource of liberal national PACs which poured in
massive funds for advertising into the race at the very end.
This cycle Congressman Nolan remains the incumbent, but
his opponent has a hard-fought previous campaign under his
belt. Unlike 2014, when Mr. Mills depended primarily on the
state party for his GOTV, the challenger has his own major
effort underway. There are no DFL statewide candidates
running in 2016, and the Democratic presidential nominee,
usually a major asset in this race, trails Donald Trump in the
8th district. Mr. Mills family business was sold in the past year,
and he has access to virtually unlimited personal campaign
funds. Conservative PACs seem likely to match liberal PAC
funding this cycle in this race, and at least one private poll
reportedly now rates the district R+1. In any event, the
Republican candidate will not likely be caught by surprise by
any last-minute push by his DFL opponent as he was in 2014.
Mr. Nolan does have the new advantage this cycle, however, of
having no third party candidate on the ballot to drain votes
from his candidacy. In an interview at the annual state DFL
convention in Minneapolis, Mr. Nolan expressed his relief
that no Green Party candidate was running in 2016. In 2014,
the Green Party candidate, running against the incumbent’s
environmental record, received more than 11,000 votes or 4%
of the total cast. Prior to the Democratic national convention,
Mr. Nolan endorsed and supported the presidential candidacy
of Bernie Sanders (who is much more popular in the area
among DFLers than Hillary Clinton).
Environmental issues highlight one of the challenges that face
Mr. Nolan in the district. Attempts to revive the mining industry,
and thus re-employ many out-of-work miners on the Range,
bring environmentalists and labor unions into open conflict in
this part of the state. Normally, these two groups form part of
the liberal party’s base, but in this northeastern district, they
are at odds. Mr. Nolan has tried very hard to walk the fine line
between them, but as has happened in coal country in
southeastern Ohio, West Virginia and western Pennsylvania,
once large Democratic majorities now vote heavily Republican.
Another handicap for Mr. Nolan is his “F” rating from the
National Rifle Association (NRA). Mr. Mills has been endorsed by
the NRA, and is an enthusiastic hunter. Mr. Nolan also is a hunter,
and has been running TV ads proclaiming this, but his long-time
opposition to many NRA issues cuts into his support in the rural
part of the district.
One of first-time candidate Mills’ novelties last cycle was that he
was a conservative with long hair. This year, the Republican has
cut his hair, and the change seems to be working to his advantage.
A member of prominent business family in the district, Mills has
emerged as a folksy campaigner, and an articulate critic of the
Obama administration economic policies, including his strong
opposition to Obamacare (which as a businessman first drew
him into the congressional race two years ago). Mr. Mills also has
been a vocal critic of the Obama Iran deal which Mr. Nolan
voted for, and of the administration’s reduction of the military
and its foreign policy in the Middle East.
Rick Nolan will likely receive more votes in the 8th district than
Hillary Clinton, and while there are no DFL statewide candidates
to help him, the liberal party’s GOTV organization, a legacy of
the late DFL Senator Paul Wellstone, remains one of the most
effective in the nation. Mr. Nolan is an experienced campaigner,
but he faces a much tougher race this cycle than in the past two.
Having once demonstrated that a second political life is
possible in Minnesota, Rick Nolan, however, could discover in
2016 that even political re-runs, unlike TV re-runs, do not play
indefinitely, and can run out of time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A First Override Of An Obama Veto
The first successful override of a veto by President Obama
has occurred, and is much more than a footnote.
For Democrats, it is an alarum to the prospect of their party
failing to win back control of the U.S. senate. This would be
equally a warning whether or not their nominee, Hillary
Clinton, wins the presidency in November. If she does win,
but does not control the senate, she is likely to face stalemate
her entire term, because so many more incumbent liberal
senate seats than conservative seats will be up for re-election
(thus favoring GOP control of that body) in 2018. If she does
not win against Donald Trump, the period of 2017-19 would
likely resemble 2009-2011 when the Democrats had regained the
White House and controlled both houses of Congress (resulting
in, among other matters, the passage of Obamacare). Only this
time, the conservatives would be in charge.
For Republicans, the override is a trumpet call to protect their
majorities and Congress, and means that the GOP leadership
is now emboldened to block more of the policies of the Obama
administration they oppose. Many conservatives have attacked
Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for
failing to do just this, but now (just before the election) the
Republican congressional leadership can point to a success.
The specific issue arising from the legislation is of less
immediate consequence than the unprecedented override itself.
For once, the GOP leadership put their Democratic colleagues
in a bind --- they simply could not be seen as preventing 9/11
families from seeking legal redress from Saudi Arabia. It would
have been a PR disaster for the liberal party in the final days of
the 2016 campaign. Since there are legitimate controversies in
the bill, President Obama might have avoided the override by
working with the GOP leadership before the legislation passed,
but he has become so accustomed to congressional Democrats
doing his bidding in the past, and he is so politically isolated,
that he forgot or chose to ignore that the first rule in politics is
survival. Having to choose between a lame duck president or
defeat in November, it was not a difficult choice for most
Democrats. And now, the override genie is out of the political
bottle.
If you are Democrat rooting for Hillary Clinton or a Republican
rooting for Donald Trump or an independent worried about
stalemate, the override of the president’s veto is equally, but for
different reasons, a wake-up call that beginning in 2017 it won’t
likely to be political business as usual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
has occurred, and is much more than a footnote.
For Democrats, it is an alarum to the prospect of their party
failing to win back control of the U.S. senate. This would be
equally a warning whether or not their nominee, Hillary
Clinton, wins the presidency in November. If she does win,
but does not control the senate, she is likely to face stalemate
her entire term, because so many more incumbent liberal
senate seats than conservative seats will be up for re-election
(thus favoring GOP control of that body) in 2018. If she does
not win against Donald Trump, the period of 2017-19 would
likely resemble 2009-2011 when the Democrats had regained the
White House and controlled both houses of Congress (resulting
in, among other matters, the passage of Obamacare). Only this
time, the conservatives would be in charge.
For Republicans, the override is a trumpet call to protect their
majorities and Congress, and means that the GOP leadership
is now emboldened to block more of the policies of the Obama
administration they oppose. Many conservatives have attacked
Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for
failing to do just this, but now (just before the election) the
Republican congressional leadership can point to a success.
The specific issue arising from the legislation is of less
immediate consequence than the unprecedented override itself.
For once, the GOP leadership put their Democratic colleagues
in a bind --- they simply could not be seen as preventing 9/11
families from seeking legal redress from Saudi Arabia. It would
have been a PR disaster for the liberal party in the final days of
the 2016 campaign. Since there are legitimate controversies in
the bill, President Obama might have avoided the override by
working with the GOP leadership before the legislation passed,
but he has become so accustomed to congressional Democrats
doing his bidding in the past, and he is so politically isolated,
that he forgot or chose to ignore that the first rule in politics is
survival. Having to choose between a lame duck president or
defeat in November, it was not a difficult choice for most
Democrats. And now, the override genie is out of the political
bottle.
If you are Democrat rooting for Hillary Clinton or a Republican
rooting for Donald Trump or an independent worried about
stalemate, the override of the president’s veto is equally, but for
different reasons, a wake-up call that beginning in 2017 it won’t
likely to be political business as usual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: "Ronald" Trump Vs. Hillary "Mondale"
To understand why Donald Trump probably won the first TV
debate, it is necessary to revisit comments I made several
days ago about the existence of two American English
languages and those who speak them.
I contended that one of those languages is spoken by an
American “establishment” that includes well-educated and
self-styled “sophisticated” men and women with political
views across the board, left, center and right. This is a social
aristocracy that is, as it is very American, not inherited by
money or class, but its culturally transmitted by education,
occupation and personal preference. The other language,
which employs the same vocabulary and syntax, is spoken by
a large number of men and women usually with less education,
often (but not always) lower-paying work, and their own set of
cultural preferences.
Each group is aware of the other, but there is relatively little
interaction between them other than when they must transact
perfunctory business, services and other daily contact with each
other.
Hillary Clinton is the 2016 representative of the former, although
those who are conservative and others who are more radical do
not necessarily like her or plan to vote for her. Donald Trump is
the representative of the latter, although those who are liberal or
very conservative do not necessarily like him or plan to vote for
him. Moreover, while Mrs. Clinton was born in her group, Mr.
Trump was not.
Donald Trump was born into wealth, privilege, private education
and high culture. But his business life which has absorbed him
most of his adult life has brought him into constant and close
contact with those who worked for him in the construction
business. According to those who know him best, Mr. Trump was
not a distant uninvolved boss, but like so many who are very
successful, was one who mixed freely with his workers and, very
importantly, listened to what they told him. As a result, he learned
not only their language, but also gained an understanding of what
was important to them.
It is their language he has been speaking in the 2016 campaign, and
their concerns he has tried to address --- and that is why, in my
opinion, the so-called educated and cultured class, even those who
are traditionally Republican and conservative, have failed to
understand his success in the 2016 primary/caucus nomination
campaign. They are, in the savvy words of a woman I know, tone deaf
to the language of those who speak the “other” American English.
In the first debate, Hillary Clinton looked and spoke well. I thought
she outperformed expectations, and most of those, including
Republicans, who speak the first kind of English thought she won the
debate. They also found Donald Trump, as they almost always have,
to be crude, ill-informed and inappropriate.
Yet almost all of the post-debate polls (unscientific, but reflecting
their audiences or readership) found that the majority favored Mr.
Trump as the winner. When you consider that these polls include
such liberal and very pro-Clinton publications as Slate, MSNBC
and Time, this is a surprise. Those who write for these and many
other liberal media outlets are predictably saying that Mrs. Clinton
won the debate --- but how does one account for these contrary poll
results, even conceding their unscientific basis? (Conservatives
rarely if ever go to liberal sites.)
I thought Mr Trump’s debate performance was uneven, restrained,
occasionally bombastic, but mostly on a substantive message of
hopeful change --- and he spoke in the language of
non-establishment Americans. I thought Mrs. Clinton’s debate
performance was well-prepared, self-assured and aggressive (all
positives) --- but she spoke in the language of the establishment.
Ronald Reagan was a movie star governor who spoke in a
non-establishment language. Not only Democrats, but many
Republicans did not take him seriously. Walter Mondale was a
career politician who was smart, witty and well-informed, and
he spoke the establishment language with almost perfect pitch.
He seemed clearly to out-debate Mr. Reagan in their first debate,
and he openly declared that he was going to raise taxes and
increase the role of government if he became president. Large
numbers of working class Democrats then voted for Mr. Reagan
who won in an historic landslide.
I might be wrong about this, but I think the hard evidence of the
2016 campaign so far supports my argument. We will know for
sure in just about a month from now, and extraordinary events,
domestic or international, could intervene to change the course
of this campaign. There are also two more debates ahead.
Of the campaign messages, which is the most hopeful and
appealing: “Make America Great Again,” “I’m With Her” or
“Vote For Neither”?
This presidential race continues to surprise and confound.
Only the voters can bring it to closure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
debate, it is necessary to revisit comments I made several
days ago about the existence of two American English
languages and those who speak them.
I contended that one of those languages is spoken by an
American “establishment” that includes well-educated and
self-styled “sophisticated” men and women with political
views across the board, left, center and right. This is a social
aristocracy that is, as it is very American, not inherited by
money or class, but its culturally transmitted by education,
occupation and personal preference. The other language,
which employs the same vocabulary and syntax, is spoken by
a large number of men and women usually with less education,
often (but not always) lower-paying work, and their own set of
cultural preferences.
Each group is aware of the other, but there is relatively little
interaction between them other than when they must transact
perfunctory business, services and other daily contact with each
other.
Hillary Clinton is the 2016 representative of the former, although
those who are conservative and others who are more radical do
not necessarily like her or plan to vote for her. Donald Trump is
the representative of the latter, although those who are liberal or
very conservative do not necessarily like him or plan to vote for
him. Moreover, while Mrs. Clinton was born in her group, Mr.
Trump was not.
Donald Trump was born into wealth, privilege, private education
and high culture. But his business life which has absorbed him
most of his adult life has brought him into constant and close
contact with those who worked for him in the construction
business. According to those who know him best, Mr. Trump was
not a distant uninvolved boss, but like so many who are very
successful, was one who mixed freely with his workers and, very
importantly, listened to what they told him. As a result, he learned
not only their language, but also gained an understanding of what
was important to them.
It is their language he has been speaking in the 2016 campaign, and
their concerns he has tried to address --- and that is why, in my
opinion, the so-called educated and cultured class, even those who
are traditionally Republican and conservative, have failed to
understand his success in the 2016 primary/caucus nomination
campaign. They are, in the savvy words of a woman I know, tone deaf
to the language of those who speak the “other” American English.
In the first debate, Hillary Clinton looked and spoke well. I thought
she outperformed expectations, and most of those, including
Republicans, who speak the first kind of English thought she won the
debate. They also found Donald Trump, as they almost always have,
to be crude, ill-informed and inappropriate.
Yet almost all of the post-debate polls (unscientific, but reflecting
their audiences or readership) found that the majority favored Mr.
Trump as the winner. When you consider that these polls include
such liberal and very pro-Clinton publications as Slate, MSNBC
and Time, this is a surprise. Those who write for these and many
other liberal media outlets are predictably saying that Mrs. Clinton
won the debate --- but how does one account for these contrary poll
results, even conceding their unscientific basis? (Conservatives
rarely if ever go to liberal sites.)
I thought Mr Trump’s debate performance was uneven, restrained,
occasionally bombastic, but mostly on a substantive message of
hopeful change --- and he spoke in the language of
non-establishment Americans. I thought Mrs. Clinton’s debate
performance was well-prepared, self-assured and aggressive (all
positives) --- but she spoke in the language of the establishment.
Ronald Reagan was a movie star governor who spoke in a
non-establishment language. Not only Democrats, but many
Republicans did not take him seriously. Walter Mondale was a
career politician who was smart, witty and well-informed, and
he spoke the establishment language with almost perfect pitch.
He seemed clearly to out-debate Mr. Reagan in their first debate,
and he openly declared that he was going to raise taxes and
increase the role of government if he became president. Large
numbers of working class Democrats then voted for Mr. Reagan
who won in an historic landslide.
I might be wrong about this, but I think the hard evidence of the
2016 campaign so far supports my argument. We will know for
sure in just about a month from now, and extraordinary events,
domestic or international, could intervene to change the course
of this campaign. There are also two more debates ahead.
Of the campaign messages, which is the most hopeful and
appealing: “Make America Great Again,” “I’m With Her” or
“Vote For Neither”?
This presidential race continues to surprise and confound.
Only the voters can bring it to closure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Debate Dependency?
Conventional wisdom has it that the imminent series of three
TV debates between Democratic presidential nominee Hillary
Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump will likely be
pivotal in the election contest that will conclude a month later.
As a chronic contrarian, I suspect that expectations on both
sides are exaggerated.
The most important element in a televised presidential debate
is visual, not verbal.
That is why John Kennedy in 1960 in the first TV presidential
debate ever defeated Richard Nixon. Most who heard that
debate only n the radio thought that Nixon had won. But Nixon’s
appearance and visual manner enabled the glamorous Kennedy
to be the winner for those who watched the debate on TV.
Three famous “blunders” in TV debates in later years were
momentarily sensational, but were not electorally fatal. Gerald
Ford mischaracterized the communist Eastern European bloc in
his debate with Jimmy Carter, but his poll numbers kept rising
after the debate. His eventual loss was primarily assigned to his
pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon. In his first debate with
Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan appeared uncertain and
confused, but he recovered sufficiently in the next debate to
defeat Mondale in a landslide. Mitt Romney, by all accounts,
clearly outperformed Barack Obama in their first TV debate,
but did not win the election.
Conventional wisdom also has it that Mrs. Clinton will outperform
Mr. Trump in their upcoming debates. That expectation is based on
the fact that she has much more public policy experience and
factual knowledge than he does. If the debates were to be decided
on solely that verbal basis, it might be a fair anticipation. But
Donald Trump faced 16 primary/caucus opponents who not only
had much more public policy “knowledge” than he did (and some
of them were also exceedingly good debaters), and yet he won the
nomination with relative ease.
Some observers suggest that while Trump was effective in debate
against multiple opponents, it will be a different story when he
has only one opponent facing him. Perhaps that is so, but perhaps
more likely will be that having only one opponent who is Hillary
Clinton will work to his advantage, particularly if the Hillary
Clinton who appears on the TV screen is the person she has been
perceived as in recent weeks on the campaign trail.
Newt Gingrich has publicly asserted that Donald Trump is the
best political debater today. Since he is a Trump partisan, this
assertion needs to be taken with caution, but Mr. Gingrich is the
reigning expert on the subject, partisanship aside. In my opinion,
the former speaker is the best political debater I have seen, and
I cite his performance in his own presidential run in 2012 as
evidence. Mr. Gingrich contends that Donald Trump’s debate
skill is unconventional, almost entirely intuitive, and inevitably
uncanny. If this is so, a lot of expectations will be upset in the
first Clinton-Trump debate.
Mrs. Clinton, unlike Mr. Trump, will be carefully prepared for
her debates with her opponent. She will have gone through weeks
of rehearsals with stand-ins against her. She will have “gotcha”
ripostes ready, and pre-planned provocations to unnerve the
first-time candidate running against her. (Mr. Trump, as we all
know by now, is quite capable of saying something outlandish.)
She will be superbly ready for a conventional debate, and if it
turns out to be one, she could come away with renewed
enthusiasm and momentum from the voters.
“Where’s the beef?” is perhaps the most famous line to come from
a televised presidential nomination debate. It was considered,
especially by the “sophisticated” media of its time, a mortal blow
to the opponent (Gary Hart) of the man (Walter Mondale) who spoke
it. In fact, Mr. Mondale went on to win his party’s nomination. In
November, however, after openly declaring he would raise taxes,
he suffered the worst presidential election defeat in modern history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
TV debates between Democratic presidential nominee Hillary
Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump will likely be
pivotal in the election contest that will conclude a month later.
As a chronic contrarian, I suspect that expectations on both
sides are exaggerated.
The most important element in a televised presidential debate
is visual, not verbal.
That is why John Kennedy in 1960 in the first TV presidential
debate ever defeated Richard Nixon. Most who heard that
debate only n the radio thought that Nixon had won. But Nixon’s
appearance and visual manner enabled the glamorous Kennedy
to be the winner for those who watched the debate on TV.
Three famous “blunders” in TV debates in later years were
momentarily sensational, but were not electorally fatal. Gerald
Ford mischaracterized the communist Eastern European bloc in
his debate with Jimmy Carter, but his poll numbers kept rising
after the debate. His eventual loss was primarily assigned to his
pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon. In his first debate with
Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan appeared uncertain and
confused, but he recovered sufficiently in the next debate to
defeat Mondale in a landslide. Mitt Romney, by all accounts,
clearly outperformed Barack Obama in their first TV debate,
but did not win the election.
Conventional wisdom also has it that Mrs. Clinton will outperform
Mr. Trump in their upcoming debates. That expectation is based on
the fact that she has much more public policy experience and
factual knowledge than he does. If the debates were to be decided
on solely that verbal basis, it might be a fair anticipation. But
Donald Trump faced 16 primary/caucus opponents who not only
had much more public policy “knowledge” than he did (and some
of them were also exceedingly good debaters), and yet he won the
nomination with relative ease.
Some observers suggest that while Trump was effective in debate
against multiple opponents, it will be a different story when he
has only one opponent facing him. Perhaps that is so, but perhaps
more likely will be that having only one opponent who is Hillary
Clinton will work to his advantage, particularly if the Hillary
Clinton who appears on the TV screen is the person she has been
perceived as in recent weeks on the campaign trail.
Newt Gingrich has publicly asserted that Donald Trump is the
best political debater today. Since he is a Trump partisan, this
assertion needs to be taken with caution, but Mr. Gingrich is the
reigning expert on the subject, partisanship aside. In my opinion,
the former speaker is the best political debater I have seen, and
I cite his performance in his own presidential run in 2012 as
evidence. Mr. Gingrich contends that Donald Trump’s debate
skill is unconventional, almost entirely intuitive, and inevitably
uncanny. If this is so, a lot of expectations will be upset in the
first Clinton-Trump debate.
Mrs. Clinton, unlike Mr. Trump, will be carefully prepared for
her debates with her opponent. She will have gone through weeks
of rehearsals with stand-ins against her. She will have “gotcha”
ripostes ready, and pre-planned provocations to unnerve the
first-time candidate running against her. (Mr. Trump, as we all
know by now, is quite capable of saying something outlandish.)
She will be superbly ready for a conventional debate, and if it
turns out to be one, she could come away with renewed
enthusiasm and momentum from the voters.
“Where’s the beef?” is perhaps the most famous line to come from
a televised presidential nomination debate. It was considered,
especially by the “sophisticated” media of its time, a mortal blow
to the opponent (Gary Hart) of the man (Walter Mondale) who spoke
it. In fact, Mr. Mondale went on to win his party’s nomination. In
November, however, after openly declaring he would raise taxes,
he suffered the worst presidential election defeat in modern history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Is Trump Ahead?
The polls, for whatever they are worth to the discussion of the
state of the presidential election, are beginning to signal that
Republican nominee Donald Trump is pulling ahead of his
Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
As I have suggested consistently, the polls are not very accurate
this cycle, and will remain so until just before the election.
That observation holds no matter who is ahead in the polls,
but might be especially so if what I and others contend is true,
that is, that most polls underestimate Mr. Trump’s likely (new)
voters (LNVs).
One of the most confirming signs of Mr. Trump’s remarkable
rise in the polls over the past 3-4 weeks is the commentary of
Nate Silver, the respected liberal pollster who so accurately
forecast the 2012 presidential election. He is, of course,
hedging his bets with seven weeks to go (during which time
every pundit and pollster would concede is long enough for any
momentum to be reversed), but he is warning that the race is
not tightening in Mrs. Clinton’s favor (as some in the media
have very recently alleged.
Much expectation now turns to the imminent first debate.
I think it is fair to say that most Democrats and even many
Republican do not anticipate that Mr. Trump will do well in
this debate against Mrs. Clinton (who has many more years of
public policy experience than her opponent). Lower expectations
might help Mr. Trump a bit, but if he blunders, it could turn the
momentum back to his opponent.
On the other hand, an unexpected poor performance by Mrs.
Clinton might be a very serious blow to her prospects.
History cautions us about debates, however. Gerald Ford’s
“Eastern Europe” blunder in 1976 did not halt his comeback
momentum (which did fall short), and Mitt Romney’s clear
triumph in his first debate with President Obama in 2012 gave
him a short-term rise in the polls, but did not take him to
victory.
Most of the old model indicators, in fact, seem suspended this
political cycle. We are passing through one of the most
unorthodox national elections in modern history.
Time is beginning to run out, and in the closing days of a
national campaign, it seems to go more and more quickly.
History has a momentum of its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
state of the presidential election, are beginning to signal that
Republican nominee Donald Trump is pulling ahead of his
Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
As I have suggested consistently, the polls are not very accurate
this cycle, and will remain so until just before the election.
That observation holds no matter who is ahead in the polls,
but might be especially so if what I and others contend is true,
that is, that most polls underestimate Mr. Trump’s likely (new)
voters (LNVs).
One of the most confirming signs of Mr. Trump’s remarkable
rise in the polls over the past 3-4 weeks is the commentary of
Nate Silver, the respected liberal pollster who so accurately
forecast the 2012 presidential election. He is, of course,
hedging his bets with seven weeks to go (during which time
every pundit and pollster would concede is long enough for any
momentum to be reversed), but he is warning that the race is
not tightening in Mrs. Clinton’s favor (as some in the media
have very recently alleged.
Much expectation now turns to the imminent first debate.
I think it is fair to say that most Democrats and even many
Republican do not anticipate that Mr. Trump will do well in
this debate against Mrs. Clinton (who has many more years of
public policy experience than her opponent). Lower expectations
might help Mr. Trump a bit, but if he blunders, it could turn the
momentum back to his opponent.
On the other hand, an unexpected poor performance by Mrs.
Clinton might be a very serious blow to her prospects.
History cautions us about debates, however. Gerald Ford’s
“Eastern Europe” blunder in 1976 did not halt his comeback
momentum (which did fall short), and Mitt Romney’s clear
triumph in his first debate with President Obama in 2012 gave
him a short-term rise in the polls, but did not take him to
victory.
Most of the old model indicators, in fact, seem suspended this
political cycle. We are passing through one of the most
unorthodox national elections in modern history.
Time is beginning to run out, and in the closing days of a
national campaign, it seems to go more and more quickly.
History has a momentum of its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2016 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)