Pity the poor, right-wing hack. The order is out: the Trump administration has been a triumph, and should be, erm, trumpeted as such, on the first anniversary of his inauguration, to be marked by — urghggh — a government shutdown and a Republican-controlled Congress against a Republican president. Triumph indeed.
The shutdown is Trump’s failure of course, whichever way it spins. What President can’t get a spending package through his own party? One with zero political skills or application. It joins a list of failures.
Trump has failed to dismantle Obamacare, failed to replace it with a better system, made no change whatsoever to the Obama admin’s policy and practice, failed to make even a beginning on a border wall. The much trumpeted 3% growth is simply a smooth continuation of the steady (and low-jobs, low-wage growth) upward trend of the Obama-era recovery. There have been successes, such as rising wages. They have come from Trump’s politics, but in a roundabout way.
Illegal immigration has fallen since his election (hence a fall in deportations), thus tightening labour markets. Hence, selective wage rises, such as Walmart’s recent bump — which also had a political purpose, of supporting corporate tax cuts. Other successes — such as the rapid confirmation of circuit judges — have been due to a Republican hold on both houses, and the tax bill was designed in Congress.
Trump is too lazy and ignorant to do anything much but not veto stuff, and the White House staff are divided and incompetent. In foreign policy, in realpolitik terms, Trump administration — now led by hawks, with the isolationists driven out — is abandoning soft power extensions of US power, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (designed to create a US-oriented power bloc), and aid to Pakistan — a vacuum that China will happily fill. Simultaneously, it is extending hard power, such as the plan to station 30,000 troops in Syria and northern Iraq, to carve out a pro-US Kurdish state — which involves supporting the longtime Stalinist guerrilla/terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), against Turkey, a NATO ally. And to top it all off, a shutdown of government, by a party in control of the presidency, House and Senate.
Yep, it’s all going great. So why — as Henry Ergas, plaintively whined last week — aren’t the polls reflecting it? (Henry’s a free-market Hayekian, whose consultancy firm went bust, so he knows a thing or two about treacherous numbers).
The answer is twofold: the Republicans’ attempts to abolish Obamacare were deeply unpopular, because tens of millions have now benefited from it, many of them Republican-leaning independents. Secondly, the stats being used to suggest a boom are the same overly generalised stats that fooled the Democrats into thinking there was a nationwide recovery underway. But if growth is confined to the coastal zones, then it can roar ahead without lifting rural Ohio, Michigan or other Trump victory zones. If unemployment is 4.1%, down from 4.9%, it may be because a new tranche of people have given up looking. At this stage we don’t really know. This brief report from Ohio, a state Trump won handily on the promise of bringing good manufacturing jobs back, is indicative. Unemployment is down because of rises in admin and service jobs, offsetting a fall in transport, utilities, etc.
That would help explain Trump’s great political anti-achievement: the huge swings to Democrats everywhere, in special elections in 2017. As Fivethirtyeight has it, Democrats have an average 12% shift across the nation — something that has only developed since Trump took office. Leaving aside the Alabama Roy Moore result, the most spectacular victory against a Republican (one not accused of pedophilia) has been in Virginia. Old Glory leans Dem in presidential elections these days, but it used to be Republican even in state contests. Not in 2017 (its out-of-cycle election year), where the Democrats won the governorship by nine points, and a range of very progressive candidates chased some good ol’ boys out of the legislature. Since out-of-cycle elections are usually the preserve of older, whiter folks, that is a very bad result indeed, and indicative of the right’s major problem: Republican-leaning independents will stay home in droves, Democrats can win seats off a low turnout, and progressives are increasingly running in (and winning) party primaries for such contests, throwing out do-nothing timeservers.
Yeah, Trump’s having a stonking year. A White House with no direction, rubber-stamping whatever Congress sends through, with special prosecutors crawling all over it, a President who lives at the golf course, and the possible loss of the House in 2018, about six years before Democrats believed they had a chance at it. The pro-Trump right are like the President they idolise: hacking away in the rough, to no great result.
200 years after Mary Shelley dreamed up a monster, Trumpenstein will pursue his enablers to their graves. Fortunately, Trumble’s clown car will follow them through the ice.
Many moons ago I worked for a corporation where colleagues were bemoaning the inertia of our new departmental head. Someone wiser than the rest urged us to celebrate the fact that the new boffin was unlikely to ever do anything therefore we should be grateful.
Ditto Trump living at the golf course.
Please, he lives at the Whitehouse the scales of envy on your eyes are very green today.
The “diplomatic coo” (thumb to nose, stick out your tongue and make noises like a pigeon?) being celebrated with Mike “You get what you pay for” Pence in Jerusalem?
One year on – surely much of that good news is a residual flow-on of Obama’s policies, washing through?
….Now the Russians are hacking the pre-mid-term election results?
……. All’s not lost. We wore Abbott for 4 days short on 2 years.
‘We wore Abbott for 4 days short on 2 years.’
Good grief, was it only two years, it felt like an eternity. One of those nightmares with no ending in sight…
Good to see your head exploding ,TRUMP, TRUMP.
Ah. A MAGAt.
I hope GR is correct in this analysis. Certainly, the special election results have been very encouraging. However, those elections have not directly involved Trump himself. A counter indication is that in the run up to the inauguration anniversary, 538’s rolling weighted aggregate of 18 polls showed a rise in Trump’s approval rate from 36.4% (16 Dec) to 40.2% (16 Jan) (tax cuts, Walmart pay rise, etc). The high was the first time it had been over 40 since May, and the surge was the only clear movement since then. Still, the last week has seen it heading south again (38.7%). Hope that fall is a trend not a blip.
Let’s not forget that Trump was running against Hillary, who ran a stupendously entitled campaign. Remember that ham-fisted glass ceiling shattering at the Dem Con? Trump won by the barest margin in exactly the right states to win the EC – fundamentally on the back of voters angry with the establishment and hopeful The Donald could shake up the Fed Gov. And with a low turnout for HRC because (i) no one likes her and (ii) everyone expected her to win easily anyway.
In 2020 even if the Dems choose a donkey candidate there will be millions of fired up voters who stayed at home in 2016 itching to send a horrible man back to his golden toilets in NY. Bet your house on a humiliating defeat for Trump, assuming he hasn’t been necked or bowed out early to avoid being a big, fat loser. The thing he hates above all else.
“In 2020 even if the Dems choose a donkey candidate there will be millions of fired
up voters who stayed at home in 2016 itching to send a horrible man back to his
golden toilets in NY.”
Seems like a dreadful case of I (or you) wish Mr Smith. By August a good deal of the US nation knew that Trump would win. So did the news agencies but they were loathed to report it. I knew on the 11 August because people from all walks of life were saying the same thing. They were not deceived by Trump but he was preferred to Hillary for more or less the same reasons.
The “donkey candidate” may well come to be Ms Winfrey. It is no more likely to be
Mr Sanders in 2020 than it was going to be in 2016. As to Ms Clinton and the forthcoming primaries such is a case of “we’ll see”.
Lastly the 2016 election was ANYTHING BUT a stay-at-home election. However about 20% of the eligible vote resorted to early voting for various reasons. Otherwise the incidence of voting was comparable to that of 2008; take a look at the doco. What is deserving of emphasis is that the rate per 100,000 is declining as a trend.
“By August a good deal of the US nation knew that Trump would win.”
This is simply absurd. Clinton won the popular vote, but failed very narrowly in a few key swing states. It’s easy to be a smart aleck in hindsight, but Trump’s win was a big shock, even to his own team. Trump got a big bump in the polls coming out of the Rep Con, but following the Dem Con, Clinton’s lead over Trump swelled out to 7 points and it looked all over. And that was before the “grab them by the pussy” tape. Without Comey’s last-minute bombshell she would have won a narrow EC win, with a very clear majority in the total vote.
“Otherwise the incidence of voting was comparable to that of 2008…”
OK, but who turned out to vote? Clinton simply failed when it came to energising the Democratic base, and couldn’t even get a majority of white women on board. In 2020 many of those same women, especially minorities, will be highly motivated to punish Trump. Meanwhile Trump’s approval amongst evangelicals is already declining. He got Neil Gorsuch onto the bench, the motivation to hold their nose and vote for Trump will be less urgent.
Do have it your own way but I was there from July to August and I suspect that you were not there but were reading the articles published by the ABC and The Guardian (to identify two blatant pro Hillary supporters). The details don’t matter but when a group of guys (attorneys in fact) at an expensive restaurants in New York stated what a bus driver in Montgomery told me it was clear that the game was over for Hillary. Those who “knew” comprised those who purchased tickets on Greyhound to waitresses in reasonable restaurants – especially in the South (around New Orleans). I must have had somewhere between 100 and 120 conversations on this very topic. I encountered only four (but memory being what it is I’ll claim six) pro Hillary supporters from a sample of over 100. The New York Times was the only mainstream publication that possessed a hint of objectivity during the election campaign. Read their articles (from June 2016) and you will acquire a very different assessment. There were periods where the Democrats did appear “ahead” but the Electoral College votes were not that compelling.
“OK, but who turned out to vote? Clinton simply failed when it came to energising the Democratic base, and couldn’t even get a majority of white women on board.”
Excellent (indirect question). The trashing of Bernie by the Democratic Party alienated a good deal (I suggest the majority of Democrats). Secondly the policies of Hillary and Bernie amounted to chalk and cheese – with most favouring the cheese and rejecting the Wall St oriented (Obama, neo-Bush) chalk. I encountered one lady in Seattle who make it clear that she had supported the Democrats (driving old people to polling stations and other various jobs as a volunteer for the last 36 years but “they could swim this time” she declared. Agreed : Hillary alienated a lot of Democrat voters to the point that many voted for Trump. The turnout was not, as I have conveyed, in difference to your opinion, “low”; at least not by the 2008 number.
“In 2020 many of those same women, especially minorities, will be highly motivated to punish Trump. “
In 2020 we’ll see just how good your crystal ball is. My ball suggests that Hillary won’t nominate but Ms Winfrey will nominate. THEN the people that you identify : viz., “those same women, especially minorities” will have THEIR choice. As a recent contributor put it ”But wishful thinking about how badly he’s [Trump – my edit] going doesn’t help”.
“I was there from July to August…”
Oh, I see, scientific research based on the people you talked to in you day-to-day life. You should start up your own fivethirtyeight.com, but instead of rigorous analysis of independent polling, you can just tell everyone what the word on the street is, y’all.
And no, Oprah will not be running. Could be a black woman, but even an old, white, establishment man would be embraced by Democrats and independents, and a fair few Republicans. “Anyone but Trump.”
My bold prediction, though: Trump will not run in 2020. Any possibility that he might lose will spook him. Losing is for Losers. And he will be thoroughly bored with his life in the White House by then, and would much rather retire as America’s Greatest President. Period.
It would require some hours to “mark” this piece and thus identify all of the non-sequiturs and other aspects of bias. However I will offer a few examples as illustrations.
“The shutdown is Trump’s failure of course, whichever way it spins. ”
One might claim as much if one doesn’t care for Trump’s presidency. On the other hand he has done rather well in regard to the the South China Sea issues and North Korea.
“What President can’t get a spending package through his own party?”
A president with NO factional allegiance and no government background; one strictly of business. His own party hate him by an large. However, as I write, apparently the siege is over – and lasted (only) one business day.
“One with zero political skills or application.”
on the contrary – he has done rather well. Recall that he actually prevailed over Hillary – which is not achievable if the candidate has “zero political skills”.
> It joins a list of failures.
such remains to be seen.
“Trump has failed to dismantle Obamacare, failed to replace it with a better system, made no change whatsoever to the Obama admin’s policy and practice, failed to make even a beginning on a border wall.” [.. etc my edit]
Guy, you MIGHT attempt a comparison between Obama and his 12 point plan in 2009 and the “ticks” on Trump’s to-do list. Then you you would be credited with the application of “objective reporting”. For the sake of brevity Obama sat on
his butt for eight years. Obama-care was actually a Hillary innovation. Besides, on this point, what do YOU advocate as a “better system” for our American (second?) cousins? The yanks will reject anything that exists in Canada, the UK or Oz out of hand – as being “communist”. The strongest support for the status quo, with regard to health care, comes, apparently, from those who don’t have it or have been ill-served by it.
As to the question “why aren’t the polls reflecting Trump’s allegedly ‘brilliant’ start to 2018?” – well does Trump (or anyone) actually claim (other than the Israelis) that the start is “brilliant”? Secondly, consider the behaviour of (e.g.) The Guardian or indeed the (Oz) ABC during the presidential election campaign.
Anticipating being identified as a “Donald devotee” let me say that his solicitude for the Kurds is not extended to the Palestinians and there isn’t the least doubt (there is evidence) that he is prodding Saudi Arabia to have a shot at Iran. Then there is the envisaged dismantling of N. & S. Korea to a single unit a’ la Vietnam nowadays; the 38th parallel being just an irrational line with the war technically on-going (after 65 years). Just read the (saber-rattling) of what Abe has been declaring.
Obama bet the farm on expanding health insurance to the working poor, anathema to the GOP base who think decent medical treatment should be reserved for those who can afford to pay for it. They were able to demonise it as Socialism / Big Govt Overreach, and that + the Tea Party + gerrymandering gave the House back to the Rep.Party in 2010. From that point on the Dems were powerless to enact their agenda because the RNC went into full Abbott-esque NO mode. Obama bet the farm and didn’t get much joy from the botched Obamacare rollout. It’s a program that’s much more popular now there’s a threat of it being withdrawn.
What’s Trump’s big ticket legislative achievement? A cynical tax cut favouring the wealthy that only barely scraped through. Far from being the Great Dealmaker, he undermines good faith negotiations by grandstanding and flip-flopping based on who he’s talked to since the meeting (ie Steven Miller). Of course, there’s more than enough cheerleading / distraction from Fox and Friends to obscure the chaos.
It is unclear (at least to me) as to whether you have little to zero comprehension or are intent upon emulating someone so compromised.
[“I was there from July to August…” Oh, I see, scientific research based on the people you talked to in you day-to-day life.]
I declared that “I knew”. I did not infer that I had undertaken a statistical sample (stratified, cluster or whatever – yeah I know about this stuff)! I was speaking for myself. The only inference that I made – and I really should not need to reiterate – is that what I could determine anyone could determine just one the basis of frequency. Be that as it may. As conveyed : The NY Times had a measure of rationality. Most other publications did not. You might have addressed this point if you intended to be constructive.
> You should start up your own fivethirtyeight.com,
as a courtesy I’m undecided as to what advice I could offer you.
> And no, Oprah will not be running.
unknown (but plausable – but no big deal) at the date of the post : 24 Jan.
> My bold prediction, though: Trump will not run in 2020.
more likely to be the case but if a week is a long time in politics two years is an eternity so anything could occur.
> Any possibility that he might lose will spook him.
appealng to that logic Trump would not have entered the race in 2016 – just on the press forcasts alone; in point of fact you have CONTRDICTED your OWN argument.
“Losing is for Losers. And he will be thoroughly bored with his life in the White House by then, and would much rather retire as America’s Greatest President. Period.”
Given the concluding sentence, I do happen to have a suggestion : Books for Children. You may have some talent there.