Sane conservatives against Trump

Yeah, part of me feels like this is just piling odd and what could this really be adding at this point, but these are both so good.  And it is so frustrating that there are some genuinely thoughtful, principled Republicans out there, but that this seems to matter not a wit to the vast majority of Republican voters.  First Ana Navarro (sorry for the ugly formatting, I cannot get Chrome to distill page even though I told it to):

I voted against Donald Trump because I am an immigrant. Trump has spent this campaign focusing on the very bad things done by a very small group of very bad immigrants. He has portrayed immigrants as criminals, rapists, and murderers. He does not talk about the contributions immigrants have made to America. He does not talk about immigrants who have made this a better and stronger country. He does not talk about the thousands and thousands of immigrant names that fill the Vietnam Wall in Washington or that are carved on so many headstones in every US military cemetery around the world.
I voted against Donald Trump because I am Hispanic. On June 16, 2015, the first day of his campaign, Trump called Mexicans “rapists.” I was not born in Mexico. I am not of Mexican descent. But I knew he was also talking about me.
I voted against Donald Trump for every American who looks and sounds like me. Because we love this country. We are proud of this country. We stand as equals in the United States of America.
I voted against Donald Trump because of 8-year-old Alessia. She is my best friend’s daughter. Alessia was born in Miami. Both her U.S.-citizen parents were born in Venezuela. Alessia can’t sleep at night. She is afraid that if Trump becomes president, her parents will be forced to leave our country.
I voted against Donald Trump because of Judge Gonzalo Curiel. He was born in the United States to poor Mexican immigrant parents. Judge Curiel is the federal judge assigned to the Trump University case. Trump dismissively called Judge Curiel “Mexican” and attacked his ability to perform his job impartially because of his descent. Attacking another American’s qualifications solely based on his ethnic background is bigotry. Plain and simple.

And the WSJ’s Brett Stephens:

Someday, maybe, when I’m old and a child asks me what I remember about the awful election of 2016, I’ll say: It was the Big Reveal.

Revealed: That the guiding spirit of the modern conservative movement is neither Burke nor Lincoln. It’s Marx. “These are my principles,” Groucho once cracked, “and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.” Everything Republicans once claimed to advocate—entitlement reform, free trade, standing up to dictators, encouraging the march of freedom around the world—turns out to be negotiable and reversible, depending on Donald Trump’s whims and the furies of his base.

Revealed: That moral clarity and moral equivalence have become interchangeable concepts in today’s GOP. The same Republicans who pontificated throughout the 1990s about restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office are now eager to rent that office to a man who boasts of his own sexual predations. Why? Because Bill Clinton already did it.

Revealed: That Mr. Trump’s unrelenting and apparently irrepressible bigotry, misogyny, bullying and conspiracy-mongering won’t keep Republican leaders from supporting him, provided he mouth pieties about appointing more Scalias to the court or cutting corporate tax rates. “More common ground than disagreement,” was how House Speaker Paul Ryan justified his June endorsement of the GOP nominee, right around the time he described Mr. Trump’s slander of “Mexican” judge Gonzalo Curiel as a “textbook definition of a racist comment.” A smarter response by the speaker might have been: “You lost me at hello.”
Also revealed: That conservatives who once took umbrage at being called racist or anti-Semitic are now happy to flirt with white nationalism. That a party of self-described strict constructionists sees nothing amiss in Mr. Trump’s call to rewrite the 14th Amendment. That the ability of Mr. Trump and his supporters to hurl insults at their critics is only exceeded by their exquisite sensitivity when they are insulted back. That a reset with Russia is a fiasco when executed by Hillary Clinton but evidence of fresh foreign-policy thinking when proposed by Mr. Trump…
What all this shows is that most conservative intellectuals have proved incapable of self-examination or even simple observation. Donald Trump is a demagogue. Period. The fervor of his crowds recalls Nasser’s Egypt. His convictions are illiberal. His manners are disgusting. His temper is frightening. It ought to have been the job of thoughtful conservatives in this season to point this out, time and again. If they can’t do that, what good are they?
No good.  Shameful cowards.

When normal is depressing

Yes, Donald Trump will likely lose tomorrow.  But it is a travesty and speaks so poorly of American democracy that he will not be utterly trounced.  Truly.  Seth Masket’s latest column captures my thoughts exactly:

What has soured me is that one candidate (spoiler alert: Donald Trump) has been going out of his way to make a mockery of the entire political system. He is unlike any other modern major party presidential candidate, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. He has run for office by trying not to expand a coalition but rather to narrow one. He insults large blocs of voters. He demonizes women, Latinos, Muslims, and Jews, among others. He makes young girls feel bad about themselves. Rather than just hinting at sexist or racist tropes, he overtly employs them, legitimizing their use by others.

And, for what it’s worth, he mocks the rituals and practices associated with our presidential elections. He has refused to release his personal tax statements. His medical disclosures have been a joke. He does not prepare for debates except to attempt to sexually humiliate his opponent. If he can’t find a poll that supports him, he’ll fabricate one in his head. And, of course, vows that, if he wins, he’ll jail his opponent, and, if he loses, he’ll challenge the outcome.

But what should sour us even more is that this hasn’t mattered very much. Yes, it’s mattered to some extent. I take seriously the forecasts that a more conventional Republican candidate would be beating Clinton right now. But it’s nonetheless disheartening that a candidate can do pretty much everything in his power to disqualify himself from office and see many of his own party’s leaders and nearly every major newspaper in the nation endorse his opponent and still be within a few percentage points of winning.  [italics Seth; bold is mine]

Yep.  Ultimately, among many other concerning things, it shows our democratic institutions are far more vulnerable than we realized:

I certainly get why this happens. Party identification is incredibly powerful. It allows us to dismiss criticisms of our party’s nominee while believing everything bad about the opponent. And party identification is very useful, allowing voters to meaningly participate in elections and get a pretty good idea about where most candidates will stand on issues without doing costly research. But it also means that literally anyone who manages to get through a party’s nomination system has a shot at winning office, no matter his or her qualities and no matter how broken that nomination system might be.

The sad truth is that a racist, xenophobic, sexist, anti-Constitutional demagogue, who was a little more focused, and a little less of a transparent sexual assaulter, might well become president.  And that is absolutely the scariest part of this election.

Prediction time

So, like a good social scientist, I think I’m going to go with what makes the best sense as a social scientist.  At last check, Drew Linzer, Sam Wang, and Pollyvote all basically had this map, that’s good for me.  Nate Silver has NC, NV, and FL all tilting just Trump, so it will really be interesting to see who performs better.  For what it’s worth, the betting markets also are pretty much on this map.

So, where do I think I (and this somewhat consensus) might be wrong?  I actually NC is the likeliest of those 3 to actually be red (I really think Hispanic voters are being improperly polled in the other two states– just not that many in NC).  Given that HRC is making a last minute push in OH, I also would not be at all surprised to see her grab that and push up to 341.  I could also potentially see IA and NH flipping colors.  As for all the remaining states, I would be quite surprised if they did not end up the color on this map.

As for the final national margins?  RCP is at a 2.2 margin, Pollster is at 4.4 (2.2 with less smoothing), Sam Wang’s meta-margin is at 2.2.  So, why not go with that?  Because, based on seeing too many polls with really questionable internal crosstabs (on Hispanics, especially), I suspect that there is a systematic bias in favor of Trump.  I’m thinking Pollyvote’s 5 point margin is probably more like it, so I’m going to say something around there.

Long ago, I predicted Gary Johnson would be over 5%, now I’m not so sure.  Would not be surprised to see him at only 4%.  Though, I would be surprised if he goes lower than that.

Now, all that numbers and social science aside, I find it truly, truly horrifying that a transparently racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, shockingly ignorant, breathtakingly immature, etc., individual can get anywhere near this close to the presidency.  Truly, someone of Trump’s character and beliefs should be losing by 20, and as much as I get the power of partisanship, it depresses me that, no matter what, Trump will not have the full-on repudiation he deserves.

%d bloggers like this: