Marc Stier at Large

The big loser is Nate Silver (and other pollsters). Silver is they guy who kept saying that Trump would collapse and gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning Michigan. That he is the big loser means that Sanders win is Michigan becomes far more important. Sanders supporters have been claiming, wrongly, that the mainstream media is biased against him. It isn’t. But the media has long believed, on the basis of the initial contests and polls, that Sanders had no chance of winning the nomination and assumed, not unreasonably, that he is too far to the left to do so. And Sanders reinforced that notion by calling for a political revolution. If you say you can only win with a political revolution, you better start showing people that you can make one. Losing the base of the Democratic Party, Blacks, by huge margins while failing to cut far into the… Continue reading

The Republican establishment is still so upper-class WASP. They’ve been happy to run on racism and sexism and militarism for years. But they insisted on being polite about it, using the appropriate code words and deniable symbols like Willie Horton. Their problem with Trump is not his racism and sexism and militarism. It’s his vulgarity and bad manners. He doesn’t know which fork and knife to use when he’s skewering Black people to secure the votes of white working people for the corporate elite. Continue reading

Mitchell Swan just proposed an interesting idea–perhaps the relatively low Democratic turnout has arisen because the differences between Clinton and Sanders are actually not that great, especially compared to the differences between both Democrats and the Republicans. Now, I know that the Bernie and Hillary partisans don’t think the premise is true You see huge differences between Hillary and Bernie. But maybe your vehemence–and your efforts to focus increasingly on relatively trivial matters that are of no interest to the vast majority of voters–is a product of that lack of broad difference. It’s a combination of the imperatives of competition and what Freud called the “narcissism of small differences.” Continue reading

Trump has given self-promotion a bad name. But can I just point out that a few weeks before the reigning genius of political prognostication, Nate Silver, wrote a long post about why the Trump campaign would soon collapse, I wrote a long post explaining why Trump had a really good chance to win. My argument was not only about the appeal of Trump to the white working class base / old middle class of the Republican Party, which I’ve argued is motivated far more by race, anti-feminism, and fear of foreign enemies than economic conservatism. I also pointed to Trump’s media skills and ability to finance. My argument also rested on there being no dominant candidate in moderately conservative (which for Republicans means not totally loony) lane and that Rubio / Bush / Kasich / Walker would divide up that tendency. I think this is as important as Trump’s ability… Continue reading