August was a very bad month for Hillary Clinton, although she is still the odds-on favorite to win the Presidential elections in November, but by a shrinking margin.  If September proves to be as full of bad news and blunders as August, the elections can very well go into the final countdown month as "too close to call."   People close to Hillary Clinton are worried, and their fears are multiple.  Hillary Clinton has dodged the media, relying almost exclusively on the MSM (Mainstream Media) hatred of Donald Trump to make her the clear-cut lesser evil.  

But in the last week, even the MSM has been forced to back off on the running diatribes against The Donald.  The release of more incriminating Hillary Clinton emails that were somehow either lost or considered to be "too personal" to release to the public and to the dogged lawyers from Judicial Watch was too big to bury, even for the slavish Clinton media loyalists.  The release of the FBI's working documents "explaining" their recommendation to the Justice Department not to prosecute the former Secretary of State did not help in the least.

I heard a National Public Radio interview on Friday with Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, and he defied the MSM mandate by refusing to trash the GOP nominee.  Instead, he offered a balanced assessment of the major foreign policy differences between Trump and Clinton, and he had to admit, on balance, that Trump was more likely to negotiate with Russia and China, and less likely to look abroad for "dragons to slay."  In other words, Hillary is more in line with neoconservative and liberal R2P interventionist ideologies than Trump.

It is still clearly an uphill battle for the Republican nominee to win in November, but the momentum is building for just that.  Anyone forecasting a replay of 1964, when Lyndon Johnson swept the Electoral College nationwide in his race against Senator Barry Goldwater, is in for a big let down.

There are way too many unknowns at this moment to be making any kind of precise forecasts.  In the primary contests, the Republicans saw a boost in the number of voters who turned out to give the nomination to Trump.  The Democrats saw a significant downturn in primary turnout, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders did vastly better than he himself anticipated.  A clear majority of primary voters from both parties cast their ballots for either Sanders or Trump–two candidates with different ideologies, but similar anti-Establishment messages.  Four years ago, 53 percent of the eligible voters turned out.  Will that number decline significantly this time around?  Will the angry independent voters turn out in higher numbers, offsetting a stay-home protest by many traditional Democratic Party voters who detest Hillary?  Will voters who traditionally vote Democrat hold their noses and vote for Hillary on a lesser-evil basis? 

And what of the third party effect?  There are actually four candidates who are going to be on the ballots in all or most states:  The GOP, the Democrats, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party.  The Libertarian Party is running two former Republican governors–Gary Johnson and William Weld–as their Presidential and VP candidates. The Green Party is running Jill Stein, who is more popular than Hillary Clinton with many of the millennial voters who turned out in force for Bernie Sanders, only to see him betray their cause at the Democratic Convention by endorsing Hillary Clinton for President with very little to show in return.

In contrast to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has shown some political savvy in recent weeks.  He jumped at the invitation by Mexican President Pena Nieto to visit him–an invitation that Hillary Clinton turned down without explanation.  

The most difficult thing to read, going into November, is the mood of the American people.  They are clearly in an anti-Establishment mood, and for good reason.  Under the last eight years of Obama, the middle class has been declining, the so-called recovery has further widened the wealth gap between the upper one-percent and the rest.  As of the August data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 93.5 million working age Americans are not considered to be part of the labor force–because they are either chronically unemployed or they have never found a job in the first place.  A growing number of workers are managing on part-time jobs.  The picture is not pretty, and this has fueled a climate of dissent.  

The first of the scheduled presidential debates will not take place until later in September.  It is yet unclear whether that will be a two way or a three way debate, with Gary Johnson polling near the edge of the 15 percent level required by the Borg to get prime time status.

The bottom line:  Nobody in the Hillary Clinton camp should be lighting victory cigars at this time.  It is Hillary Clinton's election to lose, and so far, she is doing a pretty impressive job of doing just that.  


This entry was posted in Harper, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. LeaNder says:

    I have to drop this, even before reading. 😉
    But I am glad “the fat lady” made it into a headline.

  2. Sam Peralta says:

    Yes indeed the Fat Lady will only sing on November 8th. Many things can happen between now and then. I am no electoral analyst who understands demographics and the turnout math.
    The conventional wisdom is that Trump has an insurmountable hill to climb to win as he has to win over reasonable minorities of Black, Hispanic, Asian, White women, White urban men and Millenial voters. And he has to win big among suburban and rural white men.
    The media and the Clinton campaign are working overtime to paint Trump as a racist, misogynist, fascist buffoon who will be the next Hitler. This is going to fit the confirmation bias of those predisposed to dislike him. We can see that here on SST. There’s very, very few who genuinely believe that Hillary is the best candidate and are voting FOR her. What I see is most saying she is the lesser evil in comparison to Trump. So, those voting for her are voting AGAINST Trump.
    In my opinion, the 3rd party candidates are not going to have much impact as they will not make the debates. They will only get their traditional 1-2%.
    It seems to me that the debates could have a negative effect if either Trump or Hillary commit some significant faux pas, but I doubt they’ll change the electoral math substantially as both candidates will be true to form and play to their gallery. The performance of the stock market could actually play a bigger role than the debates.
    In my opinion this election is going to be very close and will hinge on turnout. I believe Trump has more motivated voters and by November 8th the anti-establishment vote will consolidate in his favor with the mindset that he’s not that scary and what the heck things are anyway going to hell in a handbasket and its worth the chance to try something different.

  3. Norbert M Salamon says:

    Thanks for the overview. Only thing missing is a mention of Mr. Assage’s forthcoming delivery of some more evidence of incompetence and or outright criminal like behavior by the Borg Queen, her Hubby and various underlings, conspirators etc. in the State Department of yore.

  4. gowithit says:

    The Trump and Clinton campaigns are approaching the November vote in very different tactics. Trump largely via his public utterances that gain TV coverage. Clinton with large ad buys. But here is a very interesting aspect: In Fla Clinton has 50 field offices to Trumps ONE! Romney had 44 in ’12 there. Similar in other swing states. This has potential of gaining 2-5 pt rise in the vote as the field offices organize voter registrations, assist in obtaining absentee ballots (and help fill them out!), bus GROUPS of voters to polling sites, etc. Such activity does not show in polls.

  5. Swampy says:

    The only Hillary sign I’ve seen in town was taken down by the owner this week. In contrast, the Bernie signs are still in many yards.

  6. gowithit says:

    I was just in Portland, Or, and area for a few days. NO SIGNS AT ALL of Prez candidates. Tho, many “Bernie” stickers still on cars. Several lawn signs for local races. A Sanders/Kasich race would’a been interesting!

  7. herb says:

    Anybody who thought Trump was going to get less than 38% of the vote was kidding themselves. Anybody who thinks Trump will get more than 45% of the vote is kidding themselves.
    If you look at the polls, the race is getting closer because her numbers are going down, not because his are going up. Johnson and Stein could tip this toward Trump, but it will take a lot for that to happen.

  8. Edward Amame says:

    Clinton’s numbers are down because news orgs like the AP and the NY Times continue to trumpet every ginned-up Judicial Watch Scandal and write s@#% like “…nevertheless fuels the perception that the Clintons or their associates may have…”
    The NY Times is especially egregious. As if they’ve completely forgotten getting led around by the nose by Judicial Watch, the American Spectator, etc and their own truly shameful role in pushing the Whitewater faux-Scandals on the American public.
    When’s the NY Times’ big story on Colin Powell’s America’s Promise Foundation, headed by his wife and raking in donations from corporate America while he was was SoS coming out? Gee, wonder if AT&T, at the time one of the biggest donors to America’s Promise, got any favors from their son Michael while he was chair of the FCC, which regulated AT&T? Enquiring minds wanna know!
    No effing wonder she hates the press and won’t do press conferences. They don’t care about policy, it’s all about walls that’ll never get built and politainment now.
    Yes it’ll be close because there are about equal numbers of Dems and Repubs in the US. It’s all about how the low-info indys get swayed between now and Nov. I think the debates will be pretty important for them.

  9. turcopolier says:

    It is cruel for you to turn against your long term MSM allies. But, IMO it is not a matter of how many registered or sympathizing allies there are. No, it is a question that I asked four years ago as to how many silent, neglected Americans will vote if they sw any hope for their chance of making the inhabitants of the big cities into an isolated minority. pl

  10. Jack says:

    You make an important observation. Those who support Trump are enthusiastically FOR him. In contrast many who support the Borg Queen are AGAINST Trump. He is setting the agenda both good and bad. He is the focus of the media, mostly as a campaign arm of the Borg Queen.
    IMO, if he continues to capitalize on opportunities like the meeting with the Mexican president, he will gain some of the fence sitters as they can start to visualize him as president. IMO, the debates are over-rated. All Trump has to accomplish is not to fit the media meme of being the crazy guy.

  11. Edward Amame says:

    Col Lang
    As I’ve said before, I changed my news-gathering habits after news orgs (esp the NY Times) disgraced themselves during the late 90s re: Bill Clinton and esp in their hideous roles in the pushing the Iraq war on us.
    Sorry you feel that way about American cities. You know we’re not all of us that “elite” here. Most of us are just working stiffs like the rest of the country except that we come in more colors and varieties so life can be a little more complicated/interesting here. We’re gonna vote too since we’re also feeling a tad pissed off since the GOP declared war on us. Plus, most of us here in the tri-state area already know exactly what Trump is, and it’s not a man of the people. I’m sure big parts of the country will buy him like a tonic on the HSC though.

  12. turcopolier says:

    your contempt for people outside the “tri-state area” is palpabe. pl

  13. Lars says:

    Trump volunteers opened an office here in Cocoa Beach at their own expense, and had quite a bit of traffic during the week they were open. Last Wednesday, a young woman showed up and informed them that she was “in charge”. Then she managed to alienate everybody and Thursday morning, the volunteers closed the office and removed everything.
    As mentioned, that ground game is important and it appears that Donald Trump has discounted it, at least here in Florida. Early voting starts in a few weeks in some states and I wonder if the Trump campaign is ready for it.

  14. BabelFish says:

    I completely agree with this. We have 30 days, more or less, before that shoe drops. If it is big enough, it would be quite a show to witness. I have to believe that the HRC folks must be building spin positions ahead of time, trying to figure which bomb will drop from WikiLeaks.

  15. Kgw says:

    Mr. Lang, as yours of the urban folk. Ad hominem does not suit you.

  16. Tyler says:

    The posts of some of you are wonderful in a “your tears are delicious” sort of way.
    Reuters rejiggered poll shows Trump ahead, the man cannot be stumped and some of you are trying to convince yourself Borg Grandma is ready to leave her safe space.
    Please tell me more how the MSM, which is in full throated 100% 3 minute hate against Trump is also in the bag for him. I’ll wait.

  17. Kgw says:

    Mr. Lang, as is yours for the urban folk…somewhat unexpected of you, I might add.

  18. VietnamVet says:

    This is the strangest of modern elections. Broadcast owners are seeing red because they are losing millions of dollars of shakedown money from the Trump campaign. The only enthusiastic voters are Trump’s. Trump is a media maven and humorous. Hillary Clinton is not amusing. Her asset is her gender. Everything rides on the debates. It is only him, her and the corporate moderators on stage. If he sells himself as funny, honest and not too much of a heel; he will win.
    Not mentioned in the media, this is really a campaign between Nationalists (Trump) and Globalists (Clinton). If voters recognize that they’ve been screwed by globalization, the endless wars, plus acknowledge the ongoing propaganda campaign directed at them; the more likely that the democratic ticket loses.

  19. Edward Amame says:

    Col Lang
    I’m sorry, but open contempt is exactly the impression I get from you regarding us city folks and I responded in kind. Again, we are not all “elite” here, and certainly not so in my case.

  20. Karl Kolchack says:

    I was chatting with physician the other day who agreed that both candidates are awful, but for him it comes down to deciding factor: Hillary has broken the law and compromised national security, and refuses to own up to her actions. He didn’t explicitly say he was voting for Trump, but I got that sense. More interestingly, he himself is an immigrant from South Asia.
    Another factor the media is discounting is that the vast majority of “undecideds” are “low information voters” who probably aren’t even paying attention yet. These are the kinds of voters who place little distinction between presidential elections and voting on American Idol. They could well be dazzled to see a “reality TV” star on the ballot and vote accordingly.

  21. different clue says:

    If the MSM sells the Clinton Inevitability line successfully enough, lots of Bitter Berners will feel free to vote “someway else” because they will feel that no matter how many of them vote for “not Clinton”, it won’t cause her to lose. If so many Bitter Berners feel “since she can’t lose, I’ll vote the way I want” that her numbers fall below the victory margin; then the MSM will have lost her the election through trying to inspire hopelessness among her opponents through pushing the Clinton Inevitability line.
    If that happens, even I will see the irony in it; even given my severe irony defficiency.

  22. Eliot says:

    “Plus, most of us here in the tri-state area already know exactly what Trump is, and it’s not a man of the people.”
    He clearly feels more comfortable among “the people.”
    – Eliot

  23. Fred says:

    “… showed up and informed them that she was “in charge”.” I’ve seen that in action in different political campaigns too. The fact that people are motivated to take the initiative to spend their own time, effort and money on opening an office is very important. The “ground game” is only important in turning out marginal voters. This election cycle I don’t think it will be as important as it would be in an off year gubernatorial race.

  24. Fred says:

    The GOP declared war on you? I thought Bloomberg was a Republican, as was Giuliani?
    “a man of the people” Hilary doesn’t fit that description either.

  25. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    I’m pessimistic about the accuracy of the polls this year.
    If it is true that land lines have fallen up to 28% since 2000, that screws up polling in the sense that pollsters are not supposed to phone mobiles. If this statistic is accurate, only 66% of potential voters are being polled.
    If it is also true that more mobiles are owned/used by younger voters, then phone-based polls are probably skewed toward older voters, who are more likely to have land lines.
    If only 2/3 of the voters can be reached by land lines, then the people answering polls on land lines are likely to be the same group of people who watch Fox and network news; this is a declining segment of the population. Meanwhile, younger voters tend to get news from John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Trevor Noah, and Samantha Bee.
    Hannity and O’Reilly are a distinctly different culture from John Oliver and Samantha Bee.
    The Hannity and O’Reilly voters are more likely to have land lines and answer polls.
    But it’s quite possible that a majority of the ‘Samantha Bee viewers’ are being missed in the polls.
    IMVHO, fewer land lines is part of the explanation for the pundits missing the Bernie Sanders phenomenon — the commentariat are still paying attention to polls, although the validity of polls is declining (in large part due to fewer land lines).
    The fat lady has not yet begun her final aria, and the polling data is probably a rich vein of disinformation.
    It seems quite likely that Trump is the apotheosis of Fox News, and no matter the outcome of this election, some very large organizations (RNC, DNC, Fox News) are either going to limp along on inertia, or else they’ll implode. At this point, IMVHO, all three of those organizations, for a multitude of reasons, have shown themselves to be more interested in ‘ratings’, no matter how that degrades the public sphere, than in public service.
    My gut sense is that a lot of people will vote: I went to Bernie caucuses in Washington state, and the smarts, energy, and professional backgrounds were breathtaking. I met several people who either lost houses, or barely held onto them, in the ‘downturn’: those folks will absolutely vote, but the DNC lost them forever by bailing out the banks. Ditto the RNC. They will not automatically gravitate to Hillary.
    Meanwhile, the MSM thrives on conflict — contrived, or otherwise — and will do its utmost to turn this election into a ‘tight race’. However, given the number of people that pollsters are probably missing, I have no clear sense what will happen.

  26. Dubhaltach says:

    “Nobody in the Hillary Clinton camp should be lighting victory cigars at this time.”
    Given the first thing that comes into my mind when I read a sentence that contains the words “Clinton” and “cigar” they might be advised to scour the premises to ensure that no cigars remain. It’d be just dreadful if slick Willy were to be engulfed in yet another scandal now wouldn’t it.
    Putting aside the effects of my having a dirty mind I find this interesting:
    “Under the last eight years of Obama, the middle class has been declining, the so-called recovery has further widened the wealth gap between the upper one-percent and the rest.”
    Two things occur to me as an outsider:
    The first is that many Americans who describe themselves as “middle class” would be (self)described as working class elsewhere – for instance in the UK or Denmark. These people have been particularly badly hit by the way the exporting of American manufacturing. The private sector jobs that remain open to them are not only few and far between but are low in status as well as being precarious and badly paid.
    The second is that this precariousness is moving up the social ladder. Lots of people who considered themselves protected from economic turmoil are now discovering that they too are part of what some writers have dubbed the “precariat”. It’s too early to tell whether they’ll react to that by becoming suffciently anti-establishment to do something about it or whether they seek shelter in strident orthodoxy.

  27. Old Microbiologist says:

    Looking at the polls is a fool’s venture. Several problems exist. Trump has been vilified to such a point that a fair amount of supporters are unwilling to admit they will vote for Trump in public. I have seen this among many of my intelligent friends. For the intelligentsia that are willing to go beyond the MSM they begin to see the bigger picture. HRC is a disastrous candidate with so many glaring problems it baffles me why they ran her at all. Trump is a blustering egoist but that is his schtick and he is good at it. In many ways he is a marketing genius and is fully cognisant that people in the US have 15 minute attention spans and only remember the highlights if they remember anything at all. If he keeps hammering “Crooked Hillary” it is going to stick. His recent speeches have demonstrated to the fence sitters he actually can behave presidentially and that his agenda is basically correct. One ting pundits keep forgetting is that the age group and minority voters don’t go to the polls except in extraordinary elections. While this is perhaps, the most important election in US history, most Americans are focused on the personalities rather than the issues. Very interesting is that both candidates are equally loathed by a majority of Americans and Trump is now polling statistically equal in polls that are rigged (deliberate oversampling of Democrats for example).
    But, the hacking of the voting machines, which has been well established may be a large problem especially if the “impartial” DHS gets involved in oversight. We have seen enough evidence now to know just how impartial they are. Should Trump survive long enough to be sworn in it will represent a major accomplishment of the proletariat against the plutocracy. If Trump is actually who he says he is then a lot of heads will roll in January if he is elected. The house cleaning and internal sabotage is going to take months if not years to fix.
    At any rate it is an exciting year.

  28. Farmer Don says:

    Do you think that the American public might get more used to Trump in the time leading up to the election?
    He seems to be everywhere.
    He goes down to see the flooding, of course it is PR, but he is there.
    He goes to Mexico, more attempted PR, but he is there,
    He begs for the Black vote, everyone assumes it is hopeless, but he asks.
    He goes to a Black Church, at points looks a little uncomfortable, but he is there.
    The first debate will have a HUUUGE audience world wide.
    (I don’t care what farming has to be done, I’m shutting down the machines to watch this debate.)
    Hillary is prepping hard.
    Donald says he is just going to wing it!

  29. Peter Reichard says:

    One third of the electorate, an unprecedented amount in US history hate both candidates. It is these people who will decide the election as the others are roughly evenly split. Some will stay home on election day or vote third party but many will finally decide only in the last several weeks regardless of what they might tell pollsters today. Consequently any current poll even with perfect methodology will have a limited probability in predicting the final result. Events in the next two months could cause this to move strongly in either direction.

  30. LeaNder says:

    Interesting,rOTL, while I would like to refer to kao on this, really: It feels the polled should still mirror the respective statistics of of relevant age groups, I would assume.
    Makes sense really. On the other hand the only person I know who never used a landline over here is a photographer and visual artist. The youngsters I am familiar with use both. Lots of good packages on offer in the field.

  31. turcopolier says:

    You are surprised that I, too, am a bigot? Is this like Auda abu Tayi’s remark in LofA (the film), “You see, he is not perfect!” I don’t like New York City. I have spent a lot of time there and am unrepentant about it. Big cities are not all equally bad. I like Paris, Budapest and Prague and a few others. that does not mean that I would live in any of them. With regard to your other remark, I was unaware that “ad hominem” could be applied to a population. My attitude toward New York City people is entirely tribal. they perceive themselves to be “a people” with many shared characteristics; aggressiveness, brusqueness, a lack of courtesy, etc. and I perceive them that way. NYC people like to think that they are widely admired. They are not. pl

  32. Eric Newhill says:

    Farmer Don, I’m with you. The debates will be both fascinating and pivotal.
    I have been trying to imagine what Hillary can throw at Trump. All she’s had so far is that he’s “crazy” and “dangerous”. All Trump needs to do is not act in a manner that confirms the accusations. Bonus points if he acts above it all and puts on a presidential persona.
    OTOH, Hillary is exposed on all flanks. She’s a continuation of Obama’s (and her husband’s) policies, which, as already pointed out, have been economically disastrous. Her tour as Sec State was disastrous. Her emails and the cover-up are embarrassments (or should be). Her own words (and her husband’s) can be used against her; e.g. to brain addled to recall security procedures. Her stint as a US Senator was lackluster. She has taken $Gazzillions from Wall St. She has a record of government service and there’s nothing good that can be said about any of it. And there’s all the lies. I am looking forward to what she attempts to do to spin all of that. I can’t figure an effective strategy.
    Then, if the health and personality issues that we keep hearing about are true and in force, she could have a meltdown on the stage. Trump has proven very good at eliciting such reactions. If he can do so without looking like a juvenile jerk, he will destroy her. Given the exposure she has, he should be able to remain presidential and still attack hard enough to cause a “short circuit”.
    This is something to not be missed.

  33. steve says:

    I would add this item as another knock against the conventional electoral wisdom:
    “In a presidential year expected to produce record turnout among Hispanic voters, there are few signs that Hillary Clinton is performing any better among Latinos than past Democratic presidential candidates — even with ­immigrant-bashing Donald Trump as her GOP opponent.
    In Nevada and Florida, the two battleground states with the highest Latino populations, the Democratic nominee remains locked in a close race with Trump. Clinton is polling about the same as Democrats in previous contests among Latinos nationally, apparently gaining no ground from Trump’s historic unpopularity.”

  34. steve says:

    @gowithit and @Swampy
    Still some Bernie signs and bumper stickers around here in Iowa, and the caucuses were a good 7 months ago. Nothing for Hillary, but there never was. I’ve seen a few pro-Trump signs.
    I don’t see much local enthusiasm for any candidate. May be election fatigue–candidates have been running here for a year now.

  35. bks says:

    Early voting starts in MN before the first debate.

  36. An excellent mini CV. I wish I could be as succinct.

  37. Bill H says:

    “…voters who place little distinction between presidential elections and voting on American Idol.”
    I love it. Unfortunately, I suspect they are a larger portion of the electorate than we imagine.

  38. LeaNder says:

    “s also in the bag for him”
    It is, never mind if voluntarily or not. But I am pleased to learn a new word: rejigger.
    I do love rare words. Or words restricted to a narrow semantic base. 😉

  39. LeaNder says:

    Love it, Pat. In a way it reminded me of my own “ad hominem” in a private mail. 😉
    More personal note concerning Paris: I once stumbled across a book from a comparative art, urban planning, architectural perspective on Paris, London and St. Petersburg. It was quite fascinating. But as you may realize I am a pretty undisciplined reader, sometimes I don’t spent time on looking back. 😉
    I don’t know Budapest, but it seems to be a must for travelers as Prague definitively is.

  40. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I’m in agreement with the main thrust of the post, but with a a few caveats.
    Evidence continues to pile up that confirm the suspicion that many have of the Clintons–that they are grifty, manipulative, sleazy, and untrustworthy. “Active” support for HRC, weak to begin with, is indeed tanking.
    Things would have gotten a LOT more interesting had Trump been running a competent campaign. But he has not and he remains quite a ways behind. His seeming weakness, however, is a bit misleading because of his peculiar weakness continues to be his unpopularity among the usually reliable Republican voters: upper income whites, especially women. I have hard time imagining that they can be counted on to either stay away from the polling place, or even actively voting for Gary Johnson barring some major mistakes by Trump–but, given what I’ve seen of Trump, I also don’t think this is especially improbable (Trump certainly has been squandering opportunities to win them back over). On the other hand, except in fevered imaginings of Democratic partisans, these voters will not vote Democratic under almost any circumstance.
    I think past August might be best summed up as “confirmed corruption” vs. “confirmed incompetence.” Trump may be an excellent PR man, but electoral politics takes a slightly different approach to earning trust than corporate PR, and if Trump does go on to lose (by much smaller margin than people expect, but still probably a loss, I expect), not understanding the difference between political and corporate PR will be the main cause. (But, no, I don’t think a Trump defeat is a “sure” thing.)

  41. Tyler says:

    I wonder how much of Trump’s claims he is “winging it” are actually a form of maskirovka? Look at how badly he sucked in the media with his “will he/won’t he” immigration softening.

  42. steve says:

    The 93 million people not working thing keeps coming up. For those interested, link goes to a nice explanation of that number. Most of that number is made up of retirees, and kids in high school and college. It helps to remember that our peak Labor Force Participation Rate was about 68%. It has steadily decreased since about 2000 as our population has aged. While it remains lower than most of us would like to see it, we are not off by 93 million. So if you think your 88 y/o aunt in the nursing home should be working, then this 93 million number is valid.

  43. Edward Amame says:

    The national party. On cities. Although they did love NYC for a bit after 9/11.

  44. Edward Amame says:

    Yeah, “the people” who dine at Per Se.

  45. Larry Kart says:

    A side issue perhaps, but obviously I don’t thinks o. About what EA alluded to re: the NYT’s arguably more or less tit-for-tat coverage (or better continuing “novelization”) of the two campaigns, HC’s and Trump’s. Yes, the NYT endorsed HC, but their loathing of the Clintons goes back to the moment Bill and Hillary’s heads first popped above ground and continues to this day, exceeded (if that) by the somewhat different sorts of loathing and fear that Trump inspires in them.
    How you ask, can this dual loathing be? Surely the NYT’s hands have to be on the scale only one way or the other? Well, to borrow a term from the old Clinton administration and apply it to the paper itself, the NYT is engaged in a form of “triangulation.” Or to put it in a slightly different manner, in the broad sense the paper itself is more or less a candidate, and whatever more or less external interests it is or might be attempting to advance in this campaign or in general, it is primarily engaged in advancing its own interests — above all, its longstanding claim to be THE paper of record, upon which I would argue everything else rests.
    In order to maintain that stance, however dubious in fact it might be, the NYT must (see above) triangulate on a regular basis, regularly dump on HC in news stories in its patented “novelistic” Maureen Dowd-like manner, while alternately pissing on Trump and treating him (for the nonce) with relative gentleness. Again, the goal in this game of batshit balancing and arguably somewhat ectoplasmic (except in the NYT’s corridors of power) tradeoffs is that the NYT retain its would-be status as THE fair-minded reliable journalistic judge/referee. Think about it for a minute –should the paper’s status as such be significantly eroded or just plain lost, its very existence as a viable social-poltical-economic-you name it enterprise pretty much goes “poof.”
    In this vein, think back to the Judith Miller/Michael Gordon WMD days. What Karl Rove understood, reading the NYT’s anxious tea leaves quite nicely (I believe he wrote about this after the fact), is that with the advent of the Bush II administration, which seemed likely to be in place for two terms in a triumphalist manner and perhaps be followed by more of the same, the NYT was quite fearful of being backed into a semi-permanent and ever-narrowing corner of “liberal” opposition. Thus, fervent support for the WMD canard et. al. was forthcoming because it met both the overt needs of the administration and the semi-covert status-bolstering needs of the NYT. And so — at least I see it — it goes.

  46. Will says:

    in Harry Turledove’s World at War, an alternate history, the alien lizards invade before Stalingrad and fight everybody. loved the term “snoutcounting” in that series of books.
    “Snoutcounting was a derisive slang term in the language of the Race to describe democracy, a system unheard of in any culture known to the Race other than “Tosevites” and considered under the Race’s sensibilities to be anarchistic. However, when analyzing democratic nations, such as America and Canada, the Race were dumbfounded how “anarchistic not-empires” could exist so long. Thus, Fleetlord Atvar took it for granted that the death of Franklin Roosevelt would cause America to collapse, but instead was surprised and disappointed when Cordell Hull succeeded to the Presidency.
    Shiplord Straha, who’d defected to the U.S. in 1944 and was actually quite flexible in his world view, was similarly confused by the American democratic system, even after decades as a U.S. resident. As late as the 1964 election, Straha fully expected that the system would prove untenable. In the Race expatriate community living in the U.S., there were some males that looked kindly on American democracy and even proposed to institutionalizing it for the Race as well. To Straha’s perspective, it struck him as laughable.[1]

  47. LeaNder says:

    What Karl Rove understood, reading the NYT’s anxious tea leaves quite nicely (I believe he wrote about this after the fact)
    He seems to have surfaced as author again more recently. He wrote what? I admittedly was pretty impressed by Nicholas Lemann’s portrait somewhere else.
    Hmm, “ectoplastic tradeoffs”, I wish I would, but probably can’t keep that one in mind.
    Judith Miller surfaced mentally earlier while reading your reminiscences, if I may put it like that. Apart from the obvious “social-poltical-economic-you name it” context, I wondered at one point in the post 9/11 universe when and how it’s label as a liberal paper and it’s opposite camp dissenters was born, admittedly. And how that could possibly be triangulated with objectivity. 😉
    Great comment, Larry, loved it.

  48. Harper says:

    Reply to Steve: If you carefully read the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly report, the labor force participation figures factor in those who are in school, in the military, in prison, and disabled. So the 93.5 million figure excludes those categories. Furthermore, the working age does not extend beyond 67 years of age, and there are more Baby Boomers who are continuing to work past the former retirement age, so that somewhat offsets the fact that the Boomer generation is larger than the former generation in absolute numbers. The latest data from August showed the labor force participation rate at 62.7 percent, which is a significant drop since the 2000 number you cited.
    There are other factors as well: The percentage of people considered to be part of the employed labor force who are only working part-time but seek full-time employment has grown. It is now, as of August, equal to the number of people in the labor force who are unemployed. McKinsey and Company recently published a study, showing that among the 25 advanced sector countries, 70 percent of the population experienced a decline in earned income over the past 10 years. All told, it is not a pretty picture, and I believe even Steve would agree that President Obama’s claims about a great recovery from the 2008 crash is untrue–unless you are part of the bailed-out top one percent.

  49. Babak Makkinejad says:

    A the World Turns – Gender Bending par Excellence

  50. different clue says:

    Eric Newhill,
    Be pretty neat if Trump says: ” There you go again.” at appropriate moments.

  51. charly says:

    Florida is Cuban, not Latino or Mexico. I don’t think Donald Trump has said anything bad about Cubans which is unlike him

  52. Tyler says:

    Harper already ripped this to shreds, but thanks for Exhibit # ZZZ on the media acting as an arm for the DNC.

  53. Tyler says:

    You are in pathological levels of denial if you think that the NYT is 100% anything but another head of the HRC media hydra.

  54. Tyler says:

    You are in pathological levels of denial. All this sophistry doesn’t change the reality of the NYT being another head of the HRC hydra.

  55. Tyler says:

    Yeah I saw this and I’m no longer surprised by the new levels of degeneracy the Left strives for.

  56. Fred says:

    Latino and Hispanic are generic political terms. The Democrats try to “corner the market” by claiming a majority of Hispanics are going to vote for them. Trump had plenty of things to say about a particular Cuban – Marco Rubio. That was while he was campaigning against him.

  57. Fred says:

    They cleaned it up by filling the jails with those who committed crimes. How’s the Ferguson effect doing for keeping crime rates low in NYC?

  58. Larry Kart says:

    Tyler — two recent examples of what I’m talking about re: the NYT and HRC. There are many more.

    I tried to explain in my previous post how the NYT can loathe both HRC and Trump, albeit for somewhat different reasons but in both cases in order to serve what the paper sees at its own best interests. As I said in that post, the NYT is in effect itself a candidate, running not for office but for the role of key social-political adjudicator. The world is not always a simple place.

  59. steve says:

    You are wrong. There are multiple sites where you can look this up, or ask any economist in the family. The LFPR does not stop at 67. The one age limitation they use is not including those below 16. The 93 million not in the labor force include retired of all ages. We can go directly to the BLS for their definition.
    “Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. ”
    The BLS link is here.
    The article to which i originally linked has it correct. I suspect you did not read it. You should because then you would learn the composition of that 93 million. The Atlanta Fed actually writes on this topic pretty often and goes into some detail if you are interested. As I said, the largest part of this is due to retirements with our aging population.
    As to the rest, rising inequality is a major issue. It has continued to worsen under Obama, so I am under no illusion that either Democrats or Republicans particularly care about the issue. The number of part-timers remains too high. It is about 3-4 million (would need to look up but sure i am in ballpark) off its peak but is still about 2 million higher than it was in 2007. I think we are still suffering from the effects of the Great Recession, but then having read Reinhart and Rogoff’s book looking at the historical data, this is about what I expected. The worry is that this is becoming permanent. All worthy of discussion, just was sorry to see you get your numbers so wrong.

  60. steve says:

    He is wrong. Have read this stuff for years. Go read the definitions. Not that hard.

  61. steve says:

    Just in case I forgot to give you the link to BLS definitions.

  62. Fred says:

    I think your two points are right on the money.

  63. Peter Reichard says:

    One hundred percent I would say, it’s exactly what he wants her to believe.

  64. Croesus says:

    In rural Pennsylvania from Bedford, near the Maryland border, to Sharon and New Castle, on the Ohio border, and on into Rust Belt Ohio, Trump yard signs are numerous and there are several buildings marked Trump for President headquarters.
    To save 8 bucks I avoided the toll-tunnels and drove thru inner-city Baltimore (10 min. vs 90 min — dumb move) on road trip thru Delaware, New Jersey, New York and on into Connecticut– Saw Trump signs in the inner city but mostly in rural yards and very small towns, but no Hillary signs.
    The only Hillary sign I’ve seen on homes is the Hill YES! bumper sticker in my neighbor’s window.

  65. Edward Amame says:

    You really are tiresome.

  66. Edward Amame says:

    Life isn’t as black and white as you seem to think it is.
    Read these two Bob Somersby posts, the first one’s on how the Times misreports on the Clintons:
    Then this one on how they misreported on Trump’s recent speech in Phoenix:
    They’re instructive.

  67. Edward Amame says:

    ***rising inequality is a major issue. It has continued to worsen under Obama, so I am under no illusion that either Democrats or Republicans particularly care about the issue.***
    Seriously? Perhaps you missed this:
    But then perhaps you missed this too: The entire Obama presidency has basically been about congressional GOP refusal to work with him on ANYTHING. The decision to go that route was made on the day of his inauguration:

  68. LeaNder says:

    I sometimes find your comments interesting, if we leave our first serious statistical 98% clash aside, was it only 96%, something along the lines, anyway.
    At any rate it is an exciting year.
    you no doubt should, on a more emotional or exhibited emotions triggering, as I suspect, should be exited. I haven’t come further than: absurd theater.
    Any information that the DHS, already works along the lines of #Dieboldt or #Crosscheck? I am not surprised Greg Palast is around once again. But pray tell me, how could the DNC possibly interfer with some ad-hoc created system for the case and get it installed too?

  69. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    Very few signs for either Trump or Hilary here in the west metro suburbs of Minneapolis.

  70. wisedupearly says:

    Since God is responsible for hermaphrodites, is God a Lefty?

  71. Babak Makkinejad says:

    The hormones she takes to look like a man has nothing to do with God.

  72. kao_hsien_chih says:

    That’s very convenient, for both sides: it’s the fault of “the other guys”–if it weren’t for “them,” whoever they are, everything would be positively utopian.
    The problem is not a Democratic one or a Republican one: politics has failed at a systemic level, with both parties squarely at fault. I’ve found that, at this point, partisans begin nitpicking: “well, look at those other guys, who are really horrible.” For chrisssakes, enough already. Tweedledee and Tweedledum, both calling for the same status quo, as long as the other guys get pushed out. We’d done that before: unified gov’t with the Reps, then unified gov’t with Dems. Wonderful those eras were, between 2002 and 2006, then between 2008 and 2010. Pox on them all, and all their excuses.

  73. Edward Amame says:

    That’s a total load of horseshit and you know it. The gameplan from ay one was for the GOP to deny EVERYTHING to Obama so as to to make him a one term president. That morphed into the Party of No and now Ryan’s stuck with the House Freedom Caucus which apparently can’t even work with right wing GOPers. To the extent that the GOP is behaving more like an opposition party in a parliamentary system, you are correct, our presidential system has failed. But your pox on both houses defies reality.
    Please see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.cc2567d5d1f4

Comments are closed.