KK
Konspiracy Korner: Trump Scorecard
perhaps it's not the prettiest in modern history

Posted by

jemanji
5/17/17
63

.

Like we sez, a balanced diet in your political oatmeal is -- if nothing else -- less MONOTONOUS.  Y'feel me?

If this kind of masochism means for you a challenge to progressive consensus, we can recommend Camille Paglia's latest this week.  She had a great line that helped revolutionize my own understanding of gender politics:  she said "never for a moment in my life have I felt like a female."  Neither has she ever felt like a male.  For some reason, that put her perspective in a new light for me.  It's also mostly consistent with the Scriptural concept of "eunuchs," those not driven by large imbalances of testosterone or estrogen.  Up until Paglia's remarks, I thought my own friends and family were kidding, sort of.

Also provocative was her casual wave and dismissal of -all- news talk TV.  It's the way she does it.  Heh.  Only Camille would admit the first time she ever laid eyes on Megyn Kelly was at the debate.  Or was the admission a backhanded compliment to herself?

...

If you're in the mood for anti-Trump material this morning, here is Silver's inner circle discussing hopefully whether the week's 'scandals' are damaging Trump's re-election chances.  For a progressive intellectual, it doesn't get much better than that roundtable, I wouldn't guess.

;- )  Or if it does, feel free to link us up.  Do give preferential treatment to ideas.  

Actually it is fascinating to me that 538.com speaks in terms of Trump's 2020 "election."  Every month that goes by without impeachment is a considerable surprise to me, considering (1) the fervor of the Democratic base, (2) the attitude of the Republican NeverTrumpers, (3) the "Deep State" leaks and opposition, (4) the disaffection of the hard-right base typified by Ann Coulter, (5) Trump's own talent for self-immolation, (6) etc.

Why would the Left prefer a religiously committed President such as Mike Pence to a Manhattan real estate mogul?  The best explanation I've heard is that the Left figures they could "roll Mike Pence in two weeks."  Another explanation has been that the Left WANTS Trump to remain President so that it can waltz to huge election victories the next two cycles.

But James predicts an 80%, 90% chance of Trump still being in office when the next election is held, factoring in life expectancy and everything else.

...

The Dilbert guy has a fairly serious attempt at a relatively Centrist scorecard for Donald Trump.  

He has Trump doing extremely well on his own card.  So, I would be very, VERY interested in a -dispassionate- reply from a NeverTrumper (perhaps Matty?) who doesn't have much of an axe to grind on the subject.  That's because my own irritation at CNN/MSNBC -- which are to be differentiated from reasonable outlets like CBS and the WSJ -- my own irritation at the sabotage sites have given me cataracts on the Presidential scorecard five months in. 

(Scott Adams is hardly a convicted right-winger.  He's a devout materialist who believes we are probably living in a Matrix-like simulation run by unfriendly beings.  No, I'm not kidding.)

So would be quite interested in getting some help as to figuring out how it's going.  Like the Dilbert guy says, what is the baseline for success here?  Abraham Lincoln's first 100 days fighting ISIS and Kim Jong-Un?  It's a tough read.  If you can help me out, thanks in advance.

Respectfully,

Jeff

Blog: 
KK
Tags: 
Camille Paglia
Nate Silver
Donald Trump

Comments

1

I was a #NeverTrump movement conservative during the election season, but, with his election, I wanted to give him a fair chance.

I don't like the recent cavalier handling of intelligence info any more than I like HRC's bathroom server. I don't think he's doing a very good job negotiating with Congress (very few legislative items passed...and the AHCA, while improving thanks in part to Trump's persistence, is not through the door yet because he hasn't persuaded the Senate to play ball). I don't like the apparent instability within his administration, with Trump considering firing a large number of his personnel (though I would DEFINITELY fire Spicer as he is rumored to be considering...don't think I've ever seen a press secretary as inarticulate and wobbly as him)...

But I *love* his tax plan if he can get it passed. I like his SCOTUS pick. I like, thus far, his handling of North Korea. I don't believe 90% of the pearl-clutching 'news' that the left is trotting out on CNN/MSNBC/Politico/The Hill/Huffington Post etc, because very little of it makes sense to me even granting their starting assumptions about Trump's personality.

And I love that the SJW crowd is getting its cultural butt kicked.

I started by saying 'no idea' because (a) it's too early and I still want to give him a chance and (b) the media is now so completely unreliable that I have ZERO idea what stories are true, which ones are exaggerated, and which ones are just lies.

I've essentially given up. It's impossible to know what is real or true anymore.  The CIA can fake whatever evidence it wants...we've seen that they know the traces left behind by every nation engaged in hacking and online intelligence gathering operations and effectively plant evidence all they want. We've seen that members of Trump's administration who are holdovers from the Obama era are more than willing and able to cripple Trump with 'leaks' of questionable veracity. We've seen both the MSM and the conservative blog-o-sphere completely inept and biased and unable to tell us the truth. Perhaps they're just as confused as I am.

I now believe it is literally impossible to be an informed American voter.

Which means I now believe that America is on the short slide to chaos and eventually civil war.

2

Exactly what I was asking for Matt.  Thanks so much.

3
Charles Martel's picture

Charles Martel (not verified)

Is it impossible to be an informed voter or did the last election and Trump's first 100 days just allow you to see behind the curtain. To put it another way, maybe we're all in the cave and were forced to turn around?

To me the last 2 years haven't lessened my faith in being informed, I now believe it's always been incredibly hard, but the faith we had in the "The Cathedral" — The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service, is now (thankfully) gone. Trump's election and the cathedrals/leftist reaction to it has put the lie to the Cathedral.

I'm still not sure why they hate him so, but the Cathedral's irrational contempt of Trump blinded them and they overplayed their hand. Which exposed their bias and lack of ethics. That isn't to say the GOP is better, just that the perception the public has of the GOP is closer to reality than the yarn which has been spun about the left. "Reality has a well known liberal bias.", "The left owns the moral high ground." How silly do those 2 bon mots sound currently?

The left holds 2 advantages which has allowed them to win the culture war over time. The Feds bankrolling of student loans has allowed them to indoctrinate an ever increasing percentage of young minds.(The only segment of society where you can find self identified Marxists is in Academia faculty) While their control of the media means their marketing is light years ahead of the right's. When CNN is considered the moderate centrist network, you haven't just lost, you were boat raced.

This overplay meanwhile is only accelerating. Look at the way Leftist violence or intimidation is handled by the media versus how it's handled if a conservative is caught doing the same act. Why at University after University (Save for Auburn, funny that's the outlier, no?) are campus and city police being told to stand down while ANTIFA thugs were allowed to use violence to stop conservative speakers from being heard. Who are the fascists again?

I'm rambling, but my point is that yes it's incredibly difficult to be an informed voter, the manipulation and disinformation campaigns are constant. But, on the bright side, at least now you aren't staring at a wall. ; )

4

Is that we're a spoiled generation.  We all know that the USA votes more conservatively after a 9/11 type event; there is no telling how conservatively it would vote if the Chinese army came down through Canada.  These students wouldn't be so easy to educate into the grievance industry if they weren't standing in a beautiful campus quad holding smartphones and lattes.

I don't mean it pejoratively.  I mean it literally.  Millenials in the U.S. have life very, VERY good compared to 99% of the world's historical inhabitants.  "Increase the dole!"

Thanks very much for the post Charles.

5
Charles Martel's picture

Charles Martel (not verified)

It's a trite, pithy saying but I'm starting to think there's a kernel of truth to, "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times."

Maybe it's a good thing girls are outpacing boys at Uni's 60-40. I'm not sure they can get any softer, but hey, if they do gender is now fluid so they can transition to being manly women and not beta males if their skinny jeans finally castrate them physically like their word view has mentally. ; )

6
RockiesJeff's picture

RockiesJeff (not verified)

Charles, Jeff, good reading. Thanks. But sad reality.
 

 

7
Guatever's picture

Guatever (not verified)

Just wow. 

I thought this was the place for dignified discussion on these topics? Not sure a winky face at the end of those two paragraphs of baseless insults makes it ok. 

Respectfully?

David

8

Charles came on much too strong for this community, that's for sure.

I considered calling it out, but we tend to use a "points system" where you accumulate X points before a caution, and Charles is new.  But yes.  Charles please attenuate your tone to the respectful atmosphere.

Best,

Jeff

9
Charles Martel's picture

Charles Martel (not verified)

My comment about hard times wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It was more an observation that our current zeitgeist is breeding a type of male not seen in America before now. Trigger warnings, safe spaces, the idea that someone's speech should be considered a violent assault and justifies actual physical violence in turn. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone could be offended considering my comments were said in jest but the underlying issues are far from funny. If anything I wrote is worthy of being offended by it's the reality that large portion of the population thinks Free Expression is an archaic vestigal remnant of the past better forgotten and worse that violence is a legitimate tool to confront speech they dont like with!

I gather I'm supposed to be conciliatory here, but as I said my comment was written in jest, the first paragraph centered around a saying I prefaced with admitting I wasn't sure I believed in, while the second paragraph, I thought was pretty clearly ridiculous and meant to make you laugh. The seams can be pretty uncomfortable on those skinny jeans in places, have you tried on pair? : )

 

In all seriousness I very much respect the tone you've nurtured here, Jeff.

 

-C

10

I'd wager good money that in real life your comments would have come off well.  It's so tough to keep a conversation civil on the internet, where body language can't convey underlying friendliness.

11
Guatever's picture

Guatever (not verified)

Regarding the Free Speech, comment, I can't think of many things more important. But Free Speech comes with responsibility. And apologies if for me the stereotyping of an entire generation as weak and an attempt at humor that mocks certain peoples choices come off as crass. 

Yes, the times have produced a generation of males different from any other. It's produced a generation of females different from any other. As has every generation throughout modern history. Times change, and faulting people for existing in their own time seems odd. Maybe you should try on a pair of skinny jeans yourself. Perhaps you'll like that feeling ;) 

Did I do that right? ;) 

12
RockiesJeff's picture

RockiesJeff (not verified)

Very well said Matt!!!! Thank you!

13
RockiesJeff's picture

RockiesJeff (not verified)

How about Bergman for President? That Bergman never set foot in Colorado.....here is a season full!!!

14

...bursts into applause and high fiving upon discovering that their Russia/Trump story w/r/t his blabbing top secret info broke the record for most Tiwtter and Facebook mentions previously held by the October Surprise video of Trump talking about his gross exploits with women...

The fix is in.

That is your unbiased media. Blithely covering for Obama while cheering for any story that might hurt Trump.

And I can't stand Trump, so it's not like my observing this is caused by some misguided loyalty.

16

In no particular order.

1) Christian Science Monitor
2) EWTN / Catholic News Service
3) National Review
4) Wall Street Journal
5) The Economist
6) RealClearPolitics (this last because you can read the leftwing and rightwing comments in one place to try to get some sense of balance)

Beyond that, I have no faith in any of it at this point.

17

Would add Forbes.

I also like Money, but not nearly as much as Forbes.

Also am starting to like "The Week," as it presents opinions from all sides, from everywhere.

But National Review is my bread and butter.

19
Guatever's picture

Guatever (not verified)

Reminds us that both sides need to be willing to acknowledge the other viewpoint, and not dismiss it out of hand. Refreshing to hear a level-headed non-partisan view of the issue! Not everything we don't like can be dismissed with a cry of Fake News! (although I hope I'm still allowed to decry some of Trump's more outrageous tweets ;) )

Thumbs up. 

22

I agree 100% with the author's premise.  That the NYT, WaPo, etc are NOT pulling factoids out of their ears to create outright lies.

....

Whether it is actually *occurring* or not, we could argue about.  But I assume we would agree that newspapers are well capable of creating a propagandistic effect by choosing to cover Russia and avoid leading with consumer confidence, and that they are well capable of loading headlines in one direction if they so desire.

Hannity (when I've seen him) goes way too far in his implication that the media is flat-out lying, but his main point seems to be that --- > the "Fake News" creates a campaign against Trump by creating a misleading impression of his success-to-failure ratio.

23

1) NYT on Nov. 10th, two days after the election, page A-1 screamer headline:  "Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency."  

Is it my own conservative bias that has caused my impression that the NYT did not headline that way after Obama's election?

Here are 16 other NYT headlines of this type, including "Trump's Threat to the Constitution" (find that on Obama) and "Trump's Breezy Calls to World Leaders Leave Diplomats Aghast."

Aghast?!  Aghast is what the Times itself is about Trump -- not that I blame them!  That's fine, but if you're aghast at Trump, let's not pretend otherwise.

...

2) Rachel Maddow's headline "Unrest in Venezuela over Trump Donations."  Over 50% of Venezuelans will take at least one day off work this week to search the city for food, usually out of dumpsters.  The Venezuelan tragedy is truly pathetic; to lead the U.S. public to believe they are rioting over a $500K Trump donation speaks for itself as to the Fake News orientation.  You can't PROVE she was lying.  So that's not Fake News?

...

3) "Pro-Trump Rally Turns Violent," at least 100 examples.  Technically true!  But if neocons were wearing ninja outfits to pepper-spray innocents in Hillary crowds, would the headline read "Pro-Hillary Rally Turns Violent" or would it read "Trump Supporters Charged with Hate Crimes at Peaceful Hillary Rally"?

...

etc.  That's the Fake News that I'm concerned about, the DECEPTION through EMPHASIS.  Not whether the factoids, below the fold, are accurate.

24
Guatever's picture

Guatever (not verified)

...with the assessment of a 'relatively Centrist scorecard' for Trump. The rating of certain 'Things That Are Positive' is frankly laughable for anyone with even a slightly liberal bent. 'Healthcare progress'? Politely disagree on the passing of the House's patched-together bill as being called progress, after the number of Republicans reps who basically shrugged their shoulders and said 'It's the best we could do,' knowing the Senate will be completely reforming it anyway. 'Tax reform maybe'? A 'maybe' on a giant topic like this counts as a positive? 'Optimism for an Israeli-Palestinian "deal"'? Haha. That's been the case, to a lesser or greater extent, for the past how many years now? Did I miss something changing? 'Safe Zones coming along for Syrian refugees'? Didn't Trump try to block all Syrian refugees from entering the country? He gets a positive point because his travel ban didn't hold up in the courts? Color me confused. 'Illegal immigration down 70% because of Trump's persuasion alone.' #hardfacts. 

I'm reading over it again, especially the 'Things That Are Negative,' and wondering if maybe I just missed your punchline. In which case, haha. Nice one. 

Scott Adams is welcome to put his own spin on the positives, and make fun of liberals all he wants in the negatives. But let's at least recognize SPIN for what it is. 

With respect,

David

25

Healthcare progress, Tax reform maybe, Israel deal, Safe zones in Syria ... I think your disagreement on those four things seems reasonable, as I understand the situation.

But Adams listed 13 positives, of which those 4 things would probably be my own #10-13 most solid on the list.  You didn't remark on (e.g.) small business confidence, the stock market, etc, nor on Adams' major thesis -- which is that the things in the Positives bucket are more tangible (e.g. consumer confidence and the NYSE have metrics).  

And the things in the Negatives bucket consist more basically of accusations -- made by a media that considers itself to be opposing Adolf Hitler in 1936.  If his negatives are primarily that his enemies hate him, and that his personality is grotesque, that's an important point to understand, IF correct.  Those two things don't go to the issues of the economy and the general safety and security of the nation.

Do you have two-sides-of-ledger thoughts on that?

26
Guatever's picture

Guatever (not verified)

So the reason those five(!) things were the ones I highlighted, were because those five were claims that have no substantiative proof, and in some cases are outright false. Regarding the other 9?

1) The economy- By what metric? No policy change would have affected job growth in the first quarter, and economy approval ratings split on party lines. Willing to hear where the claim is backed up though. 

2) Trade deals- More specific please? And I'd probably say 'too early to tell' anyway. 

3) China relations- Again, what specifically? But sure, maybe. 

4) Russia working together on Syria and North Korea- Syria? Are we sure? 

5) China pressure on North Korea- Sure. Call it a win for Trump if you want. 

6) Jobs- See previous note on 1)

7) Healthcare- A LOT more to do

8) Supreme Court nominee confirmed- A Republican president, passing a Supreme Court nominee through a Republican House and Senate. That would be one epic fail if it hadn't happened, and it still required talk of the Senate's 'nuclear option' of getting rid of the filibuster. 

And I think we're into the previously discussed zone. 

 

Conversely, the 'Negatives' are written as a [poor representation - mod] of Democrats. Let's re-write them shall we? 

1) Enough evidence of Russian collusion with Trump campaign to warrant an investigation. An investigation which curiously, if there were nothing substantial to it, has been blocked by Trump at levels that are unprecedented since, well, you know since when. 

2) Ok, now this was just hilarious, right? I mean, who does that? 

3) Trump tweeting a warning to Comey, that many perceived as a threat. If they do exist, why would he say that? If they don't exist, why would he say that? Are we not concerned that he said that? 

4) Undignified *** comment. (and the beginning of my disillusionment with this being far from a centrist-viewpoint)

5) Trump made unsubstantiated claims against a former President of the United States of America, and has continued to propogate the rumor without once providing even a modicum of evidence to justify it. 

6) See comment 4)

7) Well, yeah, but, what exactly is the point of this entire article.

8) Trump's approval rating is abysmal. 

9) There is 'chaos' in the White House. (quotes here designed to make it seem like an inappropriate word (oh the irony))

10) Slowly losing the will to live. 

11) [Deleted] Will this man just get back to drawing Dilbert comics?

12) Or at least writing them, since the drawings have been copy & pasted for the last five years.

13) Trump getting two scoops of ice cream is the only POSITIVE I've seen yet. 

14) tl;dr

15) I'm gonna check in on the Mariner's game now. 

16) At last, some good news! 

17) Please don't let there be a 9th inning meltdown again

18) What were we talking about again? 

 

Much love,

David

27
Seattle Sports Outsider's picture

Seattle Sports ... (not verified)

From a person who didn't vote Trump or Hillary, and who crosses over left/right on varrying issues, a score card:

1. Supreme Court: what they did to Merrick Garland was a shame, but Gorsuch seems reasonable and qualified (even if he rules in ways I would disagree - let's not get into "following the letter of the law", the Supreme Court makes it owns laws in either direction). Scorecard: Trump

2. Healthcare: total mess. The House bill in its current form is not appealing if your an Obamacare apologist, nor a traditional free market conversvative. The process has been a distraction and a blight - fuel for Trump's adversaries. Even Trump's Newsmax friend is saying single payer is the way to go. Healthcare bill is a mess - up and until we don't have insurance companies/lobbyists writing it. Scorecard: Never Trumpers

3. North Korea: playing his cards fairly right in my opinion - *if* you believe North Korea to be an existential threat. China controls them, so working through China is clearly the path. What we trade in order to get North Korea under control? To be determined. Might be so called "millions of American manufacturing jobs".  Side note: Tillerson seems like a great choice. Trade offs. Scorecard: lean Trump

4. Russia: the election collusion story is out of control, he's been adding fuel to the fire. Firing Comey and then immediately meeting with Russia? Not a good look. I actually think Mark Cuban had the correct take on the Trump/Russia collusion story. Trump's associates (Page, Manafort, etc) are the likely culprits. All in all, it has not been handled well. Scorecard: lean Never Trumpers

5. China: Wilbur Ross is the key here. He knows China well and speaks intelligently about it. Trump did well to build a personal relationship. China has shown they are China First at every turn - including the One Road One Belt project. I'm doubtful anything changes with China - trade, South China sea, etc. They might help with North Korea - but they expect something from us in return. Giant megacorporations benefit from China trade - that'll be a tough enemy to wage war against to get trade reform past. Scorecard: leaning Trump

6. Leakers: Trump can't control leaks in the way he wants. Stopping leaks depends massive support for the president within each institution. Trump came out swinging at most of these institutions and individuals. Expect them to hit back. Trump is highlighting the leaking as wrong, but that's not going to plug them. Scorecard: lean Never Trumpers

7. Tax Reform: mess waiting to happen. Lowering tax rates on pass through business entities helps weathly people - unless all of the average workers can call themselves an LLC and get paid that way without losing their worker protections. Tax code is a mess, so ripe for improvement. Hopefully it comes out a bit more equitably (read and interesting article about middle/upper class housing welfare here - goo.gl/rvI0rV). Then again, I would personally choose government action that supports those that are struggling so depends on your angle. Apparently, conversatives long abandoned the idea of the balanced budget. Scorecard: lean Never Trumpers

8. Immigration/wall: deportations continue, just as they did under Obama. Now they are all over the media. In conversation with a whole host of immigrants, I was suprised to hear they don't object to the deportations. Even those that were hear illegally in the past. Breaking up families is terrible - gotta choose wisely (from a Christian perspective on the issue). Deporting kids who were brought over here without their volition - terrible. Can't fault them and send them back to a place they have never lived. Treat them as victims of crimes (trafficing?) and deal with them with empathy. Wall - Scott Adam's take on reducing immigration by 70% just through Trump's persuasion - great. Can't have a such a pourous border. A physical wall is ludicrous and won't do a thing to stop trafficing drugs (the biggest problem). Some more critical thinking on this is needed. Scorecard: lean Trump

9. Staff morale / approval ratings: clearly not many people like Trump. Doubt the approval ratings or staff morale matter enough to Trump for him to change for the better. He seems like a true believer - in his own important, capable self. Scorecard: wouldn't want to work there, but does any of it really matter?

SABR Matt summarized my exact thoughts when we were going through election season: "the media is now so completely unreliable that I have ZERO idea what stories are true, which ones are exaggerated, and which ones are just lies". I told people that Trump's lasting gift to America will be the breakdown of trust. Trust rapidly detoriating to zero: in the president, in the media, in the Supreme Court, in Congress, in the law, in our neighbors. Scorecard: absolute failure. Trump owns at least some of that failure.

28

That was epic.  Keep it comin' amigo.

....

Could you give me your thoughts on:

1)  Small business confidence indeces, the stock market, etc

2)  "No better friend, no worse enemy" foreign policy mantra  --  the basic shift towards "Don't mess with America" signalling, its effect on relations with China, etc

3)  Where you think he'll be with respect to Capitol Hill in two years

4)  Whether you personally would intervene radically to keep Kim Jong-Un from getting ICBM's in 12-18 months

thanks!,

Jeff

29
Seattle Sports Outsider's picture

Seattle Sports ... (not verified)

1)  Small business confidence indeces, the stock market, etc ----- Mostly a hallow effect of business owners, stock brokers, and hedge funds expecting to get a massive handout, errrrr, tax rate deduction. I kid about the handout, or do I?

2)  "No better friend, no worse enemy" foreign policy mantra  --  the basic shift towards "Don't mess with America" signalling, its effect on relations with China, etc ----- Trump was born to play the bully. America has been the bully for a long time, hard to operate as the lead dog in the world without being one.

3)  Where you think he'll be with respect to Capitol Hill in two years ----- If Democrats win, I could see them end up working with him and possibly get some decent progress made. If Republicans win - depending on if they are freedom caucus types or not, then we're looking at policy experiments tested on a nation wide level. Think Kansas and Gov Brownback. Ask them how its going there.

4)  Whether you personally would intervene radically to keep Kim Jong-Un from getting ICBM's in 12-18 months ----- Kim Jong-Un well realizes that a nuclear weapon is the ONLY way to stay in power of a country when the USA wants you out. And you never know when the USA will change its mind - Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak, etc. Personally - it depends on the "radical" intervention.

30

You and I did not have as much middle ground on that post but I appreciate your coherent positions on those issues.  

Only followup I'd have is on 4).  Putting aside for one moment the question of America's self-view, what would *you* do about Kim Jong-Un and nukes?  Would we agree the man is one of the few truly deranged world leaders or is that a point of dispute?

31

I want to be clear about one thing.

I see a recurring thread in which complaints about a newly horrendous lack of trust are answered with "good, those systems never deserved our trust."

First, I wouldn't say I trusted any of the systems and institutions wholeheartedly at any point after high school, but there's being skeptical and there's being hopelessly confused to the point of no longer seeing what is to be gained by watching the news. The media's quiet biases were always there and I could pick them out...but when I watched the news ten years ago, I learned things by how I responded to it. Note I actually get dumber. As in...what information I take up makes me doubt things that may be true. And it's much worse than that for some...I regularly see people online responding to any negative story about trump with "the media lies, I don't believe it at all" even if fasts back the claim. That just cannot be a good thing.

And second, I sympathize with the notion that trust in untrustworthy organizations is dangerous, but here's a fact to consider. Society doesn't long function if there is no trust. Skepticism is good and healthy but if absolutely nothing can be taken seriously and trusted as a base upon which to craft an understanding of the world, that is the definition of chaos.

Beyond that point, though, I pretty much agree with all you've said and you said it better than I could have. Kudos.

32
eljugopicante's picture

eljugopicante (not verified)

Thanks for the links and thoughts.  I'm curious what brings you to conclude that 538 is some bastion of progressiveism, while Mr. Dilbert has the centrist hot-take on Trump-as-president to-date?

Seems very much a question of perspective.  The tone and take of the Dilbert guy seemed to come from smack dab in the middle of the right (neither centrist, nor far-right). 

More curious than anything...

33

Nate Silver wouldn't hesitate for a moment to tell you that he is a completely progressive secular gay activist.  (I find him to be a reasonable man.)  And Adams (like James) would flatly disavow conservativism.  You and I aren't in a position to "arbitrate" against their own self-identification.

But I wouldn't call Adams' scorecard a hot take.  It's the only attempt I've seen at creating a baseline check-the-box line item scorecard.

Scott Adams is coming from a "mob psychology" paradigm and he called a 450-foot homer by predicting Trump's election long before the fact.  

Since then he has delighted in tweaking the noses of those who are reflexively anti-Trump and those who are reflexively pro-left.  He is one of those who sees the campus dogma culture (e.g. Wobal Glarming) as having run amok, as Bill James does.  He's calling baloney on all of that, because that's where the cultural megaphones are (Hollywood, New York, college campuses).  

But Scott Adams is socially liberal, as a read of his archives will confirm.

...

That said, if you see his scorecard as incompetent, I sincerely appreciate your chiming in on that.

Respectfully,

Jeff

34
eljugopicante's picture

eljugopicante (not verified)

I don't see it as incompetent, I just see it as not coming from the center. Other comments have done a great job picking out some specifics that point to the broader context of the scorecard. He may self identify as a centrist, but the scorecard clearly as "here is my case for Trump". The absence of Trump's "wins" in the eyes of msm are maybe most telling. No big wins with three media obsession with his missiles to Syria or what they sold as the pivot (finally!) after his state of the union speech.

Again, it's all in the eyes of beholder. What may look to you like a fair, impartial, centrist take looks to me like the Trump propaganda machine. What may look to you like a left wing main stream media conspiracy looks to me like independent coverage of the first four months of an absolute train wreak, sprinkled in with some over-celebratory moments in the fleeting times when our president has appeared to be a "leader".

35

Adams is a centrist but on the Trump scorecard he is tweaking the Trump haters, as I said.  Not that he isn't sincere about his view of the first 100+ days going well for Trump.  But he's overstating to make a point, no doubt.

....

For sure 538.com is going to look accurate to many people, as Adams is going to look accurate to many people.  Myself, I'm not at all sure which is accurate :- )

36

Silver, responding to a Rose question that he had a political bias in favor of the President, added: "I'd say I am somewhere in-between being a libertarian and a liberal. So if I were to vote it would be kind of a Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision, I suppose."

If you want a progressive take, look at The Nation (The linked article criticises the wider press coverage and instincts of those that revealed the recent intelligence leaks) instead of 538.com.  

I will note that Scott Adams gives Trump credit for the economy 3 times (1. The economy, Obama's economy; 6. Jobs, of which, gains have been similar or less than what was being created under Obama; 13. Business Confidence High, I certainly hope so since they made up a large part of his voting block, but that may change now that Ford is going to dent those positive numbers) in 13 positive points. The fact is that most economists give relatively little credit to presidents for economic circumstances, especially those that occur within the first few months of a presidency when policies have hardly been passed or had time to take effect.

I find it difficult to credit Trump for Syrian safe zones that were established between Assad, Russia, Turkey, and Iran without notable US involvement.  The healthcare reform (which I find horrifying) has so far passed one house, with far less review than the ACA had, the tax plan is mostly ideas and would probably create massive deficits while failing to provide the 10% fantasy growth.  The work with China may represent progress, but it is thin and likely the result of years of diplomatic pressure and work, and I don't give credit to Trump for their work with North Korea - no one wants thermonuclear war on their border.  The possiblity of less Israeli isolation and brutal treatment of Palestinians will be great if it happens.  I do notice there is a lot of maybe and a lot of in the future and a lot of things that can easily be related to work that Obama or others started.

As far as negatives go; Golf, an arbitrary travel ban that failed to target countries that had produced terrorists in America while simultane, Michael Flynn, nepotism, weekend trips to Mira Lago to play golf, outrageously expensive travel for his family (including for business purposes), suggesting the previous administration conducted criminal surveillance with zero corroborating evidence, "Alternative Facts" and generally telling his constituency to not believe credible news sources, Steve Bannon tricking his way onto the National Security Council, damaging relationships with Australia, Germany, South Korea, & NATO, divulging national secrets, firing an FBI Director during an active investigation into himself, golfing every weekend after citing that as a major deficit of Obama.  I feel like these are all pretty concrete facts.

37

The very interview you cite has Charlie Rose (a liberal) scoffing at Silver's claim that his views are moderate.  Ted Koppel did this for 40 years, solemnly swear that he had no strong orientation on politics.  Have you ever once read 538.com (as I do consistently)?  Claiming that Nate Silver is not progressive is exactly comparable to somebody claiming Rush Limbaugh is not a Republican (which is technically true).  It not only misses the point, it heads in the opposite direction of the point.

Silver's life mission is to prevent the election of people like Donald Trump.  I've probably read 100,000 of his words.  He's the Koppel of our time, obsessed with the APPEARANCE of neutrality while being the least-neutral person on the 'net.

....

As to self-identification -- what Silver will ADMIT to in his quest to be seen as dispassionate --  I used the word "progressive," not liberal.  Silver's phrase "between libertarian and liberal" is solidly within my definition of "Progressive" although not within yours. 

I would consider about 40% of America as progressive; you would apparently consider MUCH less of America truly progressive, and that's fine.

But this point I will cheerfully grant you:  it was a misstatement on my part to say "Nate Silver wouldn't hesitate to tell you he is completely progressive."  I retract that statement.  And subtract much of my respect for Nate Silver.

38

Malcontent, this point of yours I sincerely find very interesting:

.

I will note that Scott Adams gives Trump credit for the economy 3 times (1. The economy, Obama's economy; 6. Jobs, of which, gains have been similar or less than what was being created under Obama; 13. Business Confidence High, I certainly hope so since they made up a large part of his voting block, but that may change now that Ford is going to dent those positive numbers) in 13 positive points. The fact is that most economists give relatively little credit to presidents for economic circumstances, especially those that occur within the first few months of a presidency when policies have hardly been passed or had time to take effect.

.

Mark Cuban predicted a giant stock market crash if Trump were elected.  If the NYSE had crashed, beginning precisely on Nov. 9, would you have absolved Trump?

...

Here is the U.S. Small Business Confidence Index.  It does not measure those who voted for Trump; it measures all U.S. small business owners (78% of whom say they do not vote straight party ticket).  The huge spike at the very far right coincides precisely with Trump's election, so it matters little whether Harvard profs are willing to attribute it to the election.

.

If a spike in this index doesn't matter to me, then I don't understand economics or investment.

If this doesn't go in the positive column, then nothing would.  Which is actually true in many cases:  nothing would go in the positive column for Trump, even theoretically.

....

By contrast, I'd be happy to list 10 things I like and admire about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  It's not necessary to see the world in black and white, to deny all possible positive attribution, in order to oppose a politician.

39

I'm not familiar with that graph, but when I said Donald Trump had a 20% lead on Small Business voting and you show me a chart that says Small business confidence jumped 20 points after the election...but no, he's a Republican; most small business owner's are (likely, I don't feel like looking up stats any more) Republican, that benefit stemmed from electing a Republican.  In fact here's the report of what improved from November to December.  It shows that what improved was almost entirely composed of optimism in the economy, with relatively minor bumps in actual economic factors like; Plans to Increase Employment (+1% Gain / 16% Total), Plans to Make Capital Outlays (+5% / 29%), and Plans to Increase Inventories (+0% / 4%).  What drove the bump was mostly; Expect Economy to Improve (+38% / 50%), Expect Real Sales Higher (+20% / 31%), and Now a Good Time to Expand (+12% / 23% - which looks good until you realize that the first 3 categories I mentioned are what plans to expand look like...).   Since then, over the 100+ days Donald Trump has been president;  Plans to Increase Employment has risen Zero Points (16%), Plans to Make Capital Outlays has fallen 2 points(27%), and Plans to Increase Inventories has fallen 1 Point (3%), but hey, Current Job Openings are up 4 points (33%).  The dip you see at the end there is largely due to the deflation of confidence in the future; Expect Economy to Improve (-12% / 38%), Expect Real Sales Higher (-11% / 20%).

And if the stock market had crashed on Trump's election, or for that matter on his inauguration, it would have been his fault only for the same reasons that the bump up in confidence was his fault.  So no, I would not have blamed Trump's personal actions for a theoretical stock market crash.  

And may I present my apologies for using Nate Silver's quote, but I roll my eyes every time you call Scott Adams centrist, and I've read every column you've linked to and a few others besides.  So you know, I've read plenty of Nate Silver, thanks, and he's usually pretty tightly focused on statistics, but I don't really see the bias towards progressivism from him that you do, of course I read 538 considerably less when there are not a slew of elections.  Like I said, when I want progressive opinion, I generally read TheNation.com, or a few other smaller websites.  Frankly, I think we're on opposite sides of the spectrum looking at people closer to the middle than we are, especially if you think Rush Limbaugh is equivalent to Nate Silver.

40

Points well taken.  And you may be right about Adams.  And, your quotation of Silver's self-identification was resonant.

....

My only followup:  I've done some real estate investing and owned small businesses - have you?  Why do you minimize Optimism as a factor in the health of the U.S. economy?  You are aware of 1929, and modern real estate price inflation, and tax incentives, and etc. 

41

It's based on ideals and hopes.  There was certainly a high degree of optimism that we were looking at a playoff team in the Mariners on April 1st, 2 weeks later the optimism had flagged; maybe the Mariners got a boost in season ticket sales, but I imagine the casual fan attendance is down from last year if anything.  

I've never owned real estate, or my own home.  My income is a little above the national median, I work as an architectural drafstman.  My wife, like many people our age, has $60,000 dollars in Student Loan debt - we made the first $600 dollar payment last month.  Still, we expect to buy a home in the next 2-5 years due to her soon to come boost in income.  MOST people are not earning as much money as me now, and now I feel anything but secure in the ability to purchase real estate.  My boss, who is very optimistic about the economy, has announced 3 times this year he doesn't plan to hire anyone, and I haven't received a bump in pay in 18 months.  I don't say this to complain, but optimism and reality are separate entities.

I'm well acquainted with the history of the '29 Crash, it sent my Oklahoman ancestors crawling across the country to California, but I would suggest that that crash was more a result of a stupendous (and similar to today) wealth gap, that left too large a percentage of the country too poor to make buy real estate, small businesses, and really anything that wasn't absolutely necessary for survival.  And, if you'll remember 1929, Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency, and were fresh off kicking Teddy Roosevelt and his trust busting ways out of the party (Teddy would be among the first to call himself a Progressive).  Their response to the great depression was to encourage businesses to keep employees and keep government interference to a minimum.  Workers were laid off and they quit spending money, workers that kept their jobs started socking away money under mattresses.

Like I said, despite all the optimism, actual commitments to increased hiring and increased pay remain exactly as tepid as they have for the last 6 or so years.  You have the money to invest in real estate, that's great, what is the 60% of the country that can't afford to buy a house supposed to do as that real estate inflates?  A tax plan and a healthcare plan that take government subsidies and the ability to spend money away from people that WILL spend it in the United States and giving it to people who will invest LESS than 100% of it in the United States (international stocks, vacations, and money stashes), but then I'm getting more into opinion.  But let me ask a question, had Hillary Clinton been elected, would we have seen some kind of tumble from the ~170,000 jobs added per month for the last 6 years?  

42

But if you invest $300,000 on a spec home, and the ephemereal Optimism turns to Pessimism as it is built, you're going to lose a hundred grand.  That's not speculation on my part; it's something that every investor has to understand if he isn't going to become a statistic.

Exactly the same thing applies if you're going to pay the $100,000 (?) to start a Starbucks or a car wash or an RV park.  The entire concept of economic expansion has to include grave respect for the consumers' states of mind.

The NYSE investors are predicting an economic boom.  It's important to weight their opinion appropriately.  Those guys are chess grandmasters, absolute wizards at what they do.  they're not always right but they are much, much smarter than me.

...

Good question on Hillary.  My basic response is, probably not.  But the addition of jobs is a lagging indicator.  As investment begins, job growth follows on.  Building a spec house requires many more workers in month 5 than in month 1.

I AM SURE (for what that's worth) that the campus-popular suggestion "the President doesn't matter" is wrong.  You might as well say the EPA doesn't matter and overregulation doesn't matter.  That taxes don't matter and therefore the price of lumber and labor is irrelevant.

So all the Wall Street analysts are saying "WOW AWESOME THAT TRUMP IS RUNNING THE MONEY NOW!" and Trump's detractors dismiss it with "Who wants a guy in the pocket of Wall Street?"  :- )  They haven't thought it through.

....

Good discussion Malcontent.  Very cogent arguments as always.

43

If you were reading him back then, you probably saw that he took GREAT heat fron liberals before the election because he was the least convinced of a Hillary victory.  if I remember correctly, he said that if things broke a certain way, Trump had about a one in three chance of winning.
He was roasted.

So is it fair to separate whatever his personal view is from the validity of his methodology?  Even Trump has admitted he thought he would lose.  

44

His math told him that things were shaky and he said so.  That makes him honest.  It doesn't make him non-progressive.  You can be an honest progressive, remember now Diderot ;- )

What is your reaction to the fact that "he took great heat from liberals" for telling the truth about the election?

45

they just didn't want to hear it.  It made them uncomfortable.  

What did the man say?  "You can't handle the truth"?

46
Hanjag's picture

Hanjag (not verified)

Greetings

Nice read. Just a quick self disclosure I view myself as an indepenednet centrist. I had probably more optimism than most viewing  the advantage of a "Maverick" in the White House. I remember social media sending "dem soc site" posts about Trump flip flopping his views from 30 years ago to today. The political spectrum says look he is inconsistant and this is an attack add. Well done, but it appealed to me because I certainly don't have the same views as I did when I was a teen or 20 something. One aspect in particular is his stance on hands off regime change for Syria. The Syrian regime change is all about persuing an aggressive economic attack on Russian energy exports to EU. The Natural gas pipeline would provide a competitor to the Russian pipeline and undermine their economic standing. I know Konspiracy Korner and all but is it just a little fishy that Trump reverses course and the U.S. comes to the stage with pics of gassed women and children and points toward Assad? I don't have all of the Q&A but I do question and contemplate and speak and act accordingly with what I can reason out as truth and just. After all, this is the Great American Debate, is it not.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

 

 

47

I have no idea what *I* would do with respect to Middle Eastern regimes.  So can easily picture Trump representing himself as smart and decisive on that front while having NO idea what he is doing.

Whether his motivation in Assad confrontation is to sabotage Russian energy markets I don't know.  Why do you say that?  And would that be a good foreign policy goal or a bad one?  Just curious.

48

I'm going to pass on all of the incidental (but still important issues) rasied above.

Instead, two questions:

(1) 'Both sides'.  For the moment, at least, we are beyond the Dem/GOP differences being decisive.  The GOP team holds all three branches of government.  Fears of what Schumer or Pelosi...or CNN or MSNBC can do...are archaic.  Didn't anyone notice how much they swung the last election?  

The two meaningful  'sides' now, IMO, are 'conservative' and 'Republican'.  Conservatives are those people who believe in a certain role of government, and will argue (and attempt to  legislate it) against what liberals believe.  'Republicans' are those who are either ultra rich, or those serving these same people.  Think Mercer and Koch and Adelson...and all of the congresspeople (begininng with Ryan) who do their bidding.

This is the greatest danger now facing self-identified Republicans in Congress.  If reports are true, these billionaires have had enough--or are nearly there.  If they tell their Congressional minions, "I can't support Trump anymore--and if you do, I can't support you", then everything is on the table. The ultrarich salivate over the 'health' bill that will simply deliver tanker trucks full of tax breaks on their doorsteps.  Democrats have no way to impeach Trump.  But GOP defectors could be forced into support.  And that's why there's such panic now in the GOP caucus.  

(In the interests of non-partisanship, I will say this kind or pressure is certainly not unique to the GOP--few senators have ever been more in the pocket of a special interest than Joe Lieberman was for the big accounting firms.)

If you're not a 'liberal', where do you identify in these two camps--conservative or Republican?

(2) The biggest issue I have with the Trump nonsense (almost entirely self-inflicted) is that it threatens to obscure the far more important issue--Russian intervention in the last (and future?) election.  If Trump should face impeachment and be removed, Americans and legislators will either shut down in disgust...or wander off celebrating.  Thus, the WORST outcome could emerge-- the government not fully investigating exactly what happened...why it happened...and what to do to combat it in the future.

Do you care about Russians impacting our democracy?

49

And am aware that the Soviets - communists - Russians been doing EVERYTHING they can do to destabilize our elections --- > since at least 1950.  I trust you are also aware of that?

Would be interested to know Diderot what you think of these five deals that Hillary made with Russians, all referenced through the New York Times and a matter of record.  Did you care about Hillary's acceptance of Russian bribes (to the tune of $145M and involving sale of nuclear components) impacting our democracy?

....

But I don't mean to come off harsh.  That was a really good post my friend.

I'm very alarmed by back-channel US dealings with Russia.  But I can't understand why Hillary's and Obama's dealings were a nonissue and these are an issue.  NOW, the Russian connection is the most important issue of our times, it seems.  One year ago, it couldn't have mattered less.

50

I agree with your take on all that Diderot.  I *thought* that the only people who sided with "establishment Republicans" (what you call "Republicans") were the 1/10th of 1 percent who are actually feeding at the trough.

Bernie and Trump voters comprised what, 70% of the voting population?  They all want the Congressmen and lobbyists thrown out or put in jail.  Who voted for Trump - the people in favor of the status quo?

....

Honest question:  wasn't the Hillary vote basically the only vote that (inadvertently) supported the status quo?  Surely we can agree she was the personification of Washington D.C. establishment.

But of course most Hillary voters were voting for Supreme Court picks etc., and holding their noses about what it meant in terms of ossifying the establishment in D.C. 

Pages

Add comment

More information about text formats

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.