Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Newsweek Really, Really, REALLY Needs to Retract THIS Statement

Updated  | Why did FBI Director James Comey shock Washington on Friday with an announcement that the FBI “has learned of the existence of emails” related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and what does it mean?

The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true.

Why FBI Director Made Clinton Email Announcement Now, Michele Gorman and Matthew Cooper, Newsweek, Oct. 28 at 2:40 p.m.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true?

WOW.  That is utter nonsense–although I know that that is something that Comey is claiming. That Newsweek just repeats it as gospel is seriously outrageous.

What Comey testified to under oath is what was true when he testified to it under oath.  There is no obligation to apprise investigators, a grand jury, the FBI, Congress, or any other investigative body or agency, that something that was true when you said it has now changed. This is NOT an instance of misstating a fact and learning later that the fact you stated was not true when you stated it; that may or may not require correction, depending on the circumstances, but it is NOT what happened in THIS circumstance.

If Comey truly doesn’t recognize the difference, he’s wayyyyy over his head in that job he has. But he does, apparently.  He sure didn’t make that claim in his email message late yesterday to FBI employees, stating his reasons.

This is bullsh_t of the first magnitude.  That Newsweek reporters and editors that clueless, that credulous, is … oh, I don’t know … par for the course these days?  They reported this as “the truth,” folks.

Lordy.

Tags: , , , , Comments (4) | |

Economic Outcomes of Immigrants v. Their Stay at Home Counterparts: What the Data Shows

by

Mike Kimel

Economic Outcomes of Immigrants v. Their Stay at Home Counterparts: What the Data Shows

In this post, I will test whether people from countries with relatively poor economies also tend to do poorly when they relocate to the United States. As an example, GDP per capita for Haiti is much lower than GDP per capita for Hong Kong. Does the available data also say Haitian immigrants to the US generate lower income per capita than immigrants from Hong Kong? In general, as we will see below, the answer is yes.

Data used in this post comes from two sources. The first is GDP per capita, by country, obtained from the World Bank. The post also uses information obtained from the Census Department’s 2014 American Community Survey. In particular, the post uses the 2014 per capita income of immigrants to the US by nation of origin. It also uses the percentage of the immigrants from a given country that have arrived in the US prior to the year 2000. That data is kind of unwieldy to find, but the starting point is here. To be clear, immigrants in this source are foreign born, which is to say first generation only. Only immigrants alive at the time of the survey are included.

There are 72 countries for which there is data on per capita income for that country’s immigrants to the US (from the Census) and for which 2014 GDP per capita is available (from the World Bank). The graph below shows per capita income for those immigrants along the X axis, and GDP per capita along the Y axis.

immigrants1Figure 1

The correlation is 0.7, which is fairly high. That is to say, in general, the poorer a country is, the worse its immigrants fare in the US. This is because on aggregate the skills and culture of people living in poor countries do not command a high price on the world market. Such a combination of skills and culture will also not command a high price in a large open economy like the US. (Yes, there are exceptions. Some will be covered in later posts.)

Tags: Comments (27) | |

James Comey’s Appalling Abuse of Office

“I got a lot of respect for Jim Comey, but I don’t understand this idea of dropping this bombshell which could be a big dud,” said former federal prosector Peter Zeidenberg, a veteran of politically sensitive investigations. “Doing it in the last week or ten days of a presidential election without more information, I don’t that he should because how does it inform a voter? It just invites speculation … I would question the timing of it. It’s not going to get done in a week.”

Nick Akerman, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, was more critical: “Director Comey acted totally inappropriately. He had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed.”

“It is not the function of the FBI Director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant,” Akerman added. “The job of the FBI is simply to investigate and to provide the results of its investigation to the prosecutorial arm of the US Department of Justice. His job is not to give a running commentary about any investigation or his opinion about any investigation. This is particularly egregious since Secretary Clinton has no way to respond to what amounts to nebulous and speculative innuendo.”

Comey’s disclosure shocks former prosecutors, Josh Gerstein, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf, Politico, 6:59 p.m. today

Former prosecutors aren’t the only ones shocked by Comey’s disclosure.  I have firsthand knowledge of this and can attest to that fact.

This strikes me as an outright abuse of office by Comey.  As FBI director he learned that the FBI had found new information potentially relevant to a closed investigation but had not reviewed it yet and so its significance is uncertain.  What legal authority does he have to disclose this?  Any? At all?

I have no expertise whatsoever on the breadth of latitude that law enforcement investigative agencies have to disclose raw investigative information, but it sure as hell seems to me unlikely that it extends to willy-nilly disclosure of that information.

This guy apparently thinks that his first obligation is to protect his own reputation from certain types of criticism.*  But actually it is not.

He chose to serve his own interest when faced with what amounted to a conflict of interest.  He doesn’t belong in that job.

 

____

*I added that link at 11:22 p.m. after reading the Washington Post article that the link is to, in which dismayed former prosecutors and former Department of Justice officials make statements similar to mine.  What also is clear from that article, which reports on a letter Comey emailed to FBI employees this afternoon explaining his decision to notify Congress, is that Comey seems not to understand the role of the FBI in a matter of this sort, and misunderstands the meaning of the term “cover-up” as including ongoing investigations that have not been publicly disclosed, rather than just killing investigations.

Tags: , Comments (16) | |

Here’s what’s missing from reports that “[t]he FCC just passed sweeping new rules to protect your online privacy” by a 3-2 vote: That the three who voted for the Rule are Democrats and that the two who voted against it are Republicans. And that the president’s party gets the majority of board members, from which the chairman is selected.

Federal regulators have approved unprecedented new rules to ensure broadband providers do not abuse their customers’ app usage and browsing history, mobile location data and other sensitive personal information generated while using the Internet.

The rules, passed Thursday in a 3-2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission, require Internet providers, such as Comcast and Verizon, to obtain their customers’ explicit consent before using or sharing that behavioral data with third parties, such as marketing firms.

Also covered by that requirement are health data, financial information, Social Security numbers and the content of emails and other digital messages. The measure allows the FCC to impose the opt-in rule on other types of information in the future, but certain types of data, such as a customer’s IP address and device identifier, are not subject to the opt-in requirement. The rules also force service providers to tell consumers clearly what data they collect and why, as well as to take steps to notify customers of data breaches.

“It’s the consumers’ information,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “How it is used should be the consumers’ choice. Not the choice of some corporate algorithm.”

The fresh regulations come as Internet providers race to turn their customers’ behavioral data into opportunities to sell targeted advertising. No longer content to be the conduits to websites, social media and online video, broadband companies increasingly view the information they collect on users as they traverse the Web as a source of revenue in itself.

With its move, the FCC is seeking to bring Internet providers’ conduct in line with that of traditional telephone companies that have historically obeyed strict prohibitions on the unauthorized use or sale of call data.

But the Internet era has brought new challenges, in some cases creating different categories of personal information — and ways to use it — that did not exist in the telephone era. And as the line increasingly blurs between traditional network operators and online content companies, regulators have struggled to keep pace.

For example, Verizon’s acquisitions of AOL and Yahoo are both aimed at monetizing Internet usage beyond the straightforward sale of broadband access. With greater insights into customer behavior, the company could market additional services or content to its wireless subscribers as part of a bundle, policy analysts say. That arrangement could allow Verizon to effectively earn money twice from the same subscriber — once for the data plan, and then again when the customer consumes Verizon-affiliated content.

Although Thursday’s vote by the FCC requires companies, such as Verizon, to obtain explicit permission from consumers when it shares sensitive personal data with outside firms, it does not require broadband providers to ask permission before using the data themselves.

For instance, Verizon would be able to use a wireless subscriber’s usage history to recommend purchasing a larger mobile data plan. It could also use the customer’s information to market its home Internet service, Verizon FiOS, even though FiOS is a separate product operated by a different part of the company. In neither case would Verizon have to ask for the subscriber’s affirmative consent.

But Verizon would have to allow consumers the chance to opt out of having their usage history shared with other Verizon businesses that do not sell communications services, such as AOL or Yahoo, according to the rules.

Consumer advocates say it’s a step in the right direction, even if they would have preferred stricter requirements.

“It’s not so far off the mark that it guts the provision,” said Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. “It still provides sufficient protections for consumers to regard this as a positive step.”

A trade association for the cable industry criticized the regulations Thursday as “profoundly disappointing.”

“Today’s result speaks more to regulatory opportunism than reasoned policy,” said the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

The FCC just passed sweeping new rules to protect your online privacy, Brian Fung, Washington Post, 10:41 a.m. today

Here’s what Wikipedia’s summary of how commissioners are selected under the Federal Communications Act, which established the FCC:

The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.

Okay, look, folks.  The big news story today is Washington Post reporter Rosalind Helderman’s report on a 13-page memo from 2011 by Clinton Foundation and “Bill Clinton Inc.” impresario Douglas Band (the term “Bill Clinton Inc.” is Band’s, in the memo).

A lot of what’s detailed in there has been out there for a while, but has not penetrated virally during the general election—and did not during the primary season possibly because Sanders limited his attacks on Clinton mainly to her record as senator and to her post-Secretary of State speaking-circuit career.

But it will penetrate now, almost certainly.

Which is why it is even more important now than it has been for voters to distinguish between Clinton the person and the Democratic platform and Democratic agency and judicial appointees, which Clinton is now, finally, campaigning on.

Among last weekend’s (I think; I’ve lost track specifically) WikiLeak’s hacked Podesta-emails dump, there were two that just took my breath away.  Both were from early 2015, shortly before Clinton deigned to finally formally announce her candidacy.

One involved intense efforts by her newly hired campaign manager and Podesta and longtime Clinton surrogate and Podesta protégé Neera Tanden to convince Hillary Clinton that Bill Clinton badly needed to not give a scheduled paid speech to Morgan Stanley days after Clinton’s long-anticipated announcement of her candidacy.  Clinton was adamant that this paid speech not be cancel, and agreed finally to its cancellation only when told that Bill Clinton agreed it should be cancelled.

The other concerned equally fraught attempts by the same players plus Human Abedin to persuade Hillary Clinton that she should not fly off to Morocco shortly after that scheduled announcement, to attend gaudy festivities paid by the Moroccan government and accept a large donation to the Foundation from the Moroccan king.  The particular difficulty in her cancelling this was that she herself had solicited it.  Ultimately Clinton agreed to have Bill substitute for her.

I held my fire here on these, because it was a matter of first things first.  All that matters to me now in this election is seeing her win and seeing the Democrats recapture the Senate and do as well as conceivably possible in House races.

But what angered me intensely about these two revelations—the Morgan Stanley speaking fee even more that the Morocco trip—was the unmitigated lack of concern by this couple for the immense harm to so many people if the Republican nominee won the White House and Republicans retained control of the Senate.  It appeared at the time that the nomination was Clinton’s simply for the asking; she would have no real competition for it.  And the fact of the exorbitant speaking fee from Morgan Stanley would become known with the release of the Clintons’ tax returns in mid or late April 2016—too late for a primary challenge, but nicely available to the Republicans in the general election.

Granted, the Republican contest back then appeared likely to be between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, both of whom were profoundly compromised candidates. Rubio is a wholly owned subsidiary of one of the two major national private-prison companies and some Miami financial industry billionaire who effectively supported Rubio and his wife for several years.  Bush was making millions as a member of a yuge number of corporate boards and also as a hedge fund executive whose value came from his last name.

But the bottom line (so to speak) is that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee only because so much that would have mattered, pre-nomination, was not publicly known until now. Had they been known by late 2014 the primary field would have included a progressive Democrat who unlike Sanders would have been taken seriously by the news media. Had these things come out during the primaries, Sanders would be the nominee, despite Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s and the Clinton apparatus’s best efforts.

Instead, we have a Democratic presidential nominee so hamstrung by her own and her husband’s profound disregard for norms of conduct by pre-presidential and presidential contenders, and by their spouses, that she is unable to mention even the identities and backgrounds of the four billionaires who are funding her opponent’s campaign and who are determining his proposed policy agenda and his planned agency heads and court appointees who would carry out this agenda.

What matters now—all that matters now—is getting this candidate over the line, and getting down-ballot Democrats elected.  And the way to do that is to focus on the Democratic platform, and on Democratic agency and judicial appointments.  And on the Republican platform and Republican agency and judicial appointments.  Because Clinton’s belief notwithstanding, the majority—probably the large majority of voters—supports the Democratic agenda and opposes the Republican one.

To wit: The composition of the FCC, and today’s 3-2 vote by the board.  It should be noted that FCC Chairman Wheeler originally leaned toward the internet providers on the hot-topic net-neutrality issue last year, but he changed his position after the outcry that ensued.  But a Republican chair would have pressed right ahead with the providers’ agenda.

One of the current oddities of political punditry is an effort by a couple of high-profile baby boomer progressive pundits to sell the idea that the fact that Democrats are finally solidifying behind Clinton because, contrary to conventional wisdom, she’s actually been an excellent general election candidate and so voters now like her.

Polls are now showing that largely millennials, including black millennials, and Latinos are now plan o vote for her rather than for a third-party candidate and rather than now vote.  And that these polls showing that Democrats in large numbers are now finally saying that they are voting for her not just because her opponent is Trump but because they support her.

Notably missing from these pundits’ analysis, though, is mention of, say, policy positions.  Instead, it’s that Clinton hasn’t made any serious gaffs during the general election campaign, and that voters—presumably millennials and Latinos—who harbored hostility toward the idea of a woman president, are now losing that sexist hostility sufficiently to vote for Clinton and like it.  Or to vote for her at all.  The millennial generation really hated the idea of Elizabeth Warren as president, too.  But see?  They would have come around two weeks before election day.

What these pundits haven’t noticed, apparently because neither of them can read graphs, or neither of them recalls the Democratic Convention, is that Clinton led by double digits in the polls only during two periods.  She led in the aftermath of the Convention—which famously adopted a whole lot of Bernie Sanders’s policy agenda, and at which Clinton touted that platform in her acceptance speech.  And she led in the last week, after Sanders and Warren began aggressively campaigning for her, and in which she, finally, is campaigning on the most progressive parts of the platform.

And there actually are pundits—no, not just me; real, professional punditswho are making that point.

If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren campaign, say, at college campuses throughout Florida, for Rubio’s opponent Patrick Murphy, who apparently many voters have never heard of but who, according to polls, is running only two to three points behind Rubio, Murphy probably will win.  If Bernie and Warren remind voters that they’re choosing or opposing a slew of policies, agency heads and judicial appointments, when they vote for president, Clinton and Murphy and Dem congressional candidates probably will win.

Nothing else—nothing else—should matter to Democratic-leaning voters.   But no one should mistake support for the Democratic Party platform and for the agenda of the ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party as support for Hillary Clinton in the abstract.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (0) | |

How Does Diversity Affect Economic Growth?  A Look at Data on Immigration, Tax Rates and Real GDP per Capita

Authored by Mike Kimel

In this post, I will explain the annualized growth rate in real GDP per capita using tax rates and the percentage of the population that is foreign born using data for the United States.  The data shows the following:

A. the tax rate that maximizes economic growth is higher than you think
B. immigration from countries with advanced economies whose population resembles the US correlates with faster economic growth over subsequent years
C. increasing rates of immigration from countries with diverse populations does not correlate with faster future economic growth

You can skip ahead to the results of the regression if you want.  Otherwise, if you care about the details, here goes…

I used to occasionally write posts where I would build models based on fitting models of the following form: 

growth in real GDP per capita, t to t+1 = f(tax rate at t, tax rate squared at t)

In that formulation, tax rate = top marginal income tax rate.  The quadratic form allows us to find a tax rate that maximizes growth rates if the real world has such a thing (which, happily, it does as we will see below).   

More recently, I have been looking at how immigration has affected the economy.  In particular, I had a few posts looking at this relationship:

job growth, t to t+10 = f(foreign born % at t)

Why the ten year look-ahead?  To be frank, I just got tired of arguing with readers about causality.  Comparing X today to Y over the next ten years puts a halt to chicken and egg arguments tout suite.  

I’ve also had a few essays speculating about the effect of changes in immigration law in 1965 on the economy but in those posts, I relied only on logical and not on data.  

In this post, I want to combine those three (well, really two and a half) issues. I will fit the following model:

1. Dependent variable:  annualized growth in real GDP per capita, t to t+10
2. Explanatory variables i and ii are tax rate and tax rate squared, both at time t
3. The next explanatory variable is the % of the population that is foreign born at time t.   But…  if immigration, and its impact on the economy, changed as a result of the 1965 Immigration Act as I’ve stated in earlier posts, what we really need is two variables:
3a.  Foreign Born as a % of the Pop Until 1965 (and zero otherwise)
3b.  Foreign Born as a % of the Pop After 1965 (and zero otherwise)

Tax rates came from the IRS’s historical table # 23.  The foreign born percentage was obtained from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI).  The MPI’s data originated with the Census, but they organized it a bit better so I downloaded it from them rather than the Census.  Data is available in ten year increments from 1850 to 2010, and annually from 2010 to 2015.   I annualized the decennial data by simply assuming a linear annual change between every tenth year’s figures.  

The entire set of data was organized in Excel, but the regression itself was run in R.  The output (click on figure for larger size) appears below:

OutputFromRGrowthTaxesForeignBorn

The first thing to note is that the model explains about half of the variation in the ten year economic growth rate.  Not bad for tax rates and immigration alone.  

Next, the coefficient on tax rates is positive, the coefficient on tax rates squared is negative, and both are significant.  (That’s the quadratic relationship mentioned earlier.)  If you do the math, it turns out that the rate that maximizes the ten year annualized growth in real GDP per capita is 55%. This is about what most of my previous estimates over the years have come up with as well.  

Moving on, the next variable is the percentage of the population that is foreign born in years prior to 1965.  That variable is positive and significant even at the 1% level.  In plain English, before 1965, more immigrants -> faster economic growth. 

But the next variable is problematic, and spits out a result that is, at a minimum, politically incorrect. That variable, the percentage of the population that is foreign in years after 1965 is negative though not quite significant.  If we are worried about being reported by the neighbors, we could with a straight face, stop here and state from this that immigration has not not affected growth since 1965.  For the moment, let’s do that.  

The coefficients and relative significance of the last two variables essentially restate what I have been writing in the last few weeks.  As a result, I can explain what is going on by more or less plagiarizing myself.  So, at a high level, why does pre-1965 immigration clearly boost economic growth and post-1965 immigration clearly not?  As I noted in earlier posts, from 1921 to 1965, about 70% of the immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain and Ireland.  The 1965 Immigration Act was designed to allow more immigration from the rest of the world.  

Before 1965 immigrants would have fit in more seamlessly. After all, the US had been strongly shaped by previous immigrants from the very same countries where the new immigrants had just left.  Furthermore, most of the people the immigrants would encounter in their new land would have experience with other immigrants from the same culture. Additionally, in the last century technology was an important driver of growth, and the countries which supplied the most immigrants before 1965 also happened to be fairly technological advanced countries.  One more thing to keep in mind – the percentage of the population that was foreign born shrunk steadily from close to 12% in 1929 to about 5% in 1965.

Since 1965, of course, the story is very different.  The foreign born population has been increasing, reaching 13.5% in 2015.  Post-1965 immigrants have been far more heterogeneous in ethnic composition and skillset than the earlier group.  May have come from poorer, less technologically advanced societies.  Some have cultural traits that are not entirely compatible with accepted norms in the US which results in a variety of frictions.   

My guess, from the results, is that if more granular data was available on post 1965 immigration (say, by country of origin, or better still, by education level and education quality), it would turn out that some subsamples of post 1965 immigration had positive and significant effects on growth, but proportionately larger subsamples would have negative and significant coefficients.  I will dig a bit harder to see if I can find data that can confirm or repudiate my guess.  

A few closing comments.  Given the election is coming up, it is worth noting that Hilary and Trump are on opposite sides of both the tax and immigration issues.  Hilary’s proposed tax changes are likely to generate faster economic growth, Trump’s proposed tax changes are likely to slow the economy.  On the other hand, Trump’s immigration proposals (to the extent that they can be coherently defined) suggest an interest in pre-1965 style policies.  Hilary, though, will probably accelerate the path we are already following.  

For what it is worth, both tax and immigration policies have consequences.  However, it is easier to change direction, or to reverse the effects of earlier policies if those relate to the fiscal rather than the immigration arena.  That’s why the Roman Empire could survive crazy behavior by madmen like Caligula and Nero, but one mistake by a dry technocrat like Valens led inexorably to the sacking of Rome.  

In future posts, I will try to understand what some of the impediments have been to integration of post-1965 immigrants.  I am also interested in whether and how those impediments can be reduced.    

Finally, as always – if you want my data, drop me a line at my first name (mike) dot my last name (kimel – and that’s with one m, not two) at gmail which of course is followed by a dot com.  I’d be happy to share my Excel spreadsheets and if you want it, the trivial amount of R code that went into this.  If you contact me within a month of this post going up, I’ll send it to you.  Beyond that, I will probably send it to you but no guarantees.  I reserve the right to have my computer stolen, go into a coma, move on with my life, etc.  But of course, the data is pretty easy to recreate.  

One postscript…  This post kind of reminds of me of Presimetrics, the book I wrote with Michael Kanell.  I like to think the book never found an audience because we went where the data took us, rather than towing either the Republican or the Democrat Party lines.  As a result, some of the results we presented were in line with Republican beliefs, and some with Democrat beliefs, but neither side could embrace the results.  Had we been smart enough to be partisan hacks, perhaps the book would have sold much better. 

Tags: Comments (41) | |

Jeeps Made w/American Steel by Union Workers in Toledo

CLEVELAND — Hillary Clinton entered the final phase of her campaign on Friday, working to ensure a victory that is decisive enough to earn a mandate for her presidency and a surge of voters to help Democrats win congressional races.

Emerging from a nine­-day absence from the trail, Mrs. Clinton seized on the momentum of her performance in the final presidential debate, choosing Ohio — a battleground state where she has struggled the most against Donald J. Trump — as her first stop on a four­-day swing. With new polls showing Mrs. Clinton closing in on Mr. Trump in the state, her campaign is glimpsing the opportunity for a clean sweep of traditional swing states.

Reminding voters of Mr. Trump’s refusal in Wednesday’s debate to say definitively he would accept the outcome on Election Day, Mrs. Clinton said that as secretary of state she had visited countries whose leaders jailed political opponents and invalidated elections they did not win. “We know in our country the difference between leadership and dictatorship,” she said.

She also portrayed herself as a the candidate who could attract independent, undecided and even Republican voters unhappy with Mr. Trump’s campaign. “I want to say something to people who may be reconsidering their support of my opponent,” she said. “I know you still may have questions for me, I respect that. I want to answer them. I want to earn your vote.”

Her stop here marked the start of a rare multiday tour of swing states as the Clinton campaign revved up its efforts to decisively defeat Mr. Trump on Nov. 8, including releasing a powerful minute­-long ad featuring Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim American soldier killed in Iraq. The ad featuring Mr. Khan, who was attacked by Mr. Trump after he spoke at the Democratic convention, will run in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, as well as other crucial states.

Hillary Clinton Makes Pitch for Mandate and a Swing-­State Sweep, Trip Gabriel and Ashley Parker, New York Times, today

She knows some voters still may have questions for me, and she respects that and wants to answer them, and earn her listeners’ vote?  Does she think those questions are whether or not she would accept the outcome on Election Day if she lost?  And about whether as president she’d trash families of fallen U.S. Armed Services members who are Muslim, and attempt to categorically keep Muslims from immigrating here?

Who does she think that reminding voters of Trump’s actions and words of those sorts, including ones that has dominated the news and internet since last Wednesday night, is concerned about whether Clinton would do these things?

Clinton obviously thinks that these things are the only things that moderates and mainstream Republicans would support her about.  That’s what’s been at the heart of her campaign from its inception to, apparently, this very minute.  And it’s why she’ll win only because of who her opponent is, and why Dem Senate candidates are struggling so hard.

Paul Krugman keeps pushing the line that Clinton actually  is a terrific candidate, and by golly she’d be way ahead against Rubio or another mainstream Republican, partly because those candidates’ policy agendas and base-baiting lines are mostly pretty similar to Trump’s.  He’s right about mainstream Republican candidates’ policy agendas and, certainly, about the meaning of the Rubio bot.  But he probably still would be very much in the running to beat Clinton—who herself is trapped in a bot.

Meanwhile, yesterday, there was this little news story:

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and a staffer were in a car crash in the senator’s home state on Thursday, but have been released after receiving treatment for minor injuries at a Cleveland area hospital.

The Columbus Dispatch reports that Brown and the staffer were driving from Columbus to Brown’s home in Cleveland when they were hit by another car around 4 p.m.

Brown, a Democrat, thanked hospital staff and the makers of his Jeep Cherokee in a statement to the newspaper. “[M]y Jeep Cherokee, made with American steel by union workers in Toledo, made all the difference in allowing us to walk away from this crash, a little stiff, but unharmed,” he said.

Brown reaffirmed his thanks in a Twitter post on Friday: “Thx for care & concern. Doing fine. Grateful to Parma police, medical staff & my Jeep made w/American steel by union workers in Toledo,” he wrote.

The Dispatch also reports that “Brown’s rescue dog Franklin, strapped in with a harness, was uninjured.”

Sherrod Brown treated for minor injuries after car crash, Madeline Conway, Politico

I don’t doubt that the ad featuring Mr. Khan is powerful.  But I do doubt that it will sway many wavering Rust Belters, because they already know Mr. Khan’s message.

Had the Clinton stranglehold on the Democratic Party apparatus (certainly including donors) not elbowed out the very thought of any progressive other than Bernie Sanders—who ran only because no other progressive would—Sherrod Brown I think would have.  And would be about to witness a largely-progressive Democratic wave not seen since Franklin Roosevelt’s death.

Instead, Democrats may not even retake the Senate.

Even Franklin probably knows that things such as NLRB appointments would be good to mention in Ohio.  Maybe he can tell Clinton.  Since her campaign gurus apparently haven’t.

 

____

ADDENDUM:  Gail Collins’s NYT column today, titled “Don’t Take Donald Trump to Dinner,” is mostly about Trump’s jarring use of the annual Catholic Charities dinner in NYC a few days ago as just another forum for his usual ugly comments about Clinton.  But Collins also said this:

In a perfect world, Hillary Clinton would then have gotten up and given the most good-­natured speech in political history, scrapping all the barbed lines in her prepared script, like the one about how a Trump White House would be awkward for gatherings of the ex­-presidents (“How is Barack going to get past the Muslim ban?”). But she didn’t change a word, because Clinton is not a spontaneous politician.

If this were a normal election, we could have a very interesting discussion about how programmed she can be, and whether that would be a problem if she’s elected. But as things stand, unless we discover she’s actually an android, there’s just no point.

I wouldn’t have expected Clinton to spontaneously scrap her prepared speech and give an entirely off-the-cuff one, and at least that joke that Collins quoted was funny and pointed at Trump’s and the alt-right’s actual words and positions.

But this is a person who genuinely seems unable to take a breath on her own, and who apparently delegated to campaign consultants and advisors her campaign’s very raison d’être.  G.W. Bush did the same.  But that was unusual.  And it was a very different political era, although Clinton and her circle hadn’t noticed this until Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump forced them to belatedly, and even then not really.  Or at least not fully.  Even yet.

We have no choice now but to look forward, not backward.  But anyone who thinks that had either one run, Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown would not be about to usher in a genuinely progressive era, is willfully blind.  That is precisely because a Warren or a Brown campaign’s raison d’être would be Warren’s or Brown’s own raison d’être as politicians to begin with, argued eloquently and passionately, and contrasted to their Republican opponent’s and the Republican Party’s—in their own words, their own sentences, their own paragraphs.

Added 10/22 at 4:40 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (22) | |