Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events9/26/16 - Debate #1
10/4/16 - VP Debate
10/9/16 - Debate #2
10/19/16 - Debate #3
11/8/16 - Election Day
Tag Cloud2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Election 2016 Republican National Convention Abortion Affirmative Action Affordable Care Act Antonin Scalia Ben Carson Bernie Sanders Bob McDonnell Canada Chris Christie civil rights Delegates Delegate Selection Donald Trump First Amendment Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Iowa Caucuses Iran Jeb Bush John Kasich John McCain Marco Rubio Martin O'Malley Missouri Nevada New Hampshire Paul Ryan Pennsylvania Philadelphia polling Puerto Rico redistricting same-sex marriage Supreme Court Ted Cruz Title IX United Kingdom Voting Rights
DCW in the News
Clinton Sanders 2842 1865 56 not voting/abstained Trump Cruz 1537 569 1237 to win
Tag Archives: Donald Trump
This year’s elections saw a lot of unusual, unexpected, and unprecedented developments. So nobody should be shocked at any unexpected developments when the electoral college meets on Monday. Having said that, Democratic activists have been barking up the wrong tree by emphasizing the national popular vote. The reason why this strategy was guaranteed to backfire is the nature of the electoral college.
The electors are not randomly chosen people. They are local politicians and activists who are nominated by their state party. In short, they are not the people who are likely to surrender control of the White House to the other party. By the rules that are currently in place, the Republicans have won the White House. So while, the Constitution, theoretically, allows these electors to vote for Hillary, practically these electors will not vote for Hillary.
In theory, this election should pose a significant dilemma for the Republican or the Republican-leaning voter. A plurality of the Republican party has foisted on the voters of America someone who is unfit for any office. If voters voted for the candidate who was closest to their position, Trump would be struggling to break 25% and would be potentially looking at losing every state. Instead he is looking at getting around 75-80% of the vote from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (those who identify as independents but vote Republican in most races). There are multiple reasons for Trump’s ability to hold onto most Republican voters (which explain why the Republican Party is not yet at the point of splitting).
The first and most significant is party loyalty. Especially among those who opt to vote in the primaries, there is an investment in the party and its future. Participating in a primary is an implicit agreement with other members of your party that, as a group, you will put together a ticket — top to bottom — that will represent the party in the elections. The exact platform that the party will pursue in office will depend on the mix of candidates. If other factions do well in the primaries, that platform may not suit your faction’s wishes perfectly, but you will live with that and try to do better in the next cycle of primaries. It takes a dramatic change in the types of candidates who get elected (and typically several cycles) for a person to came to the conclusion that their party is no longer the party that they originally joined and that, on the issues that matter most to them, their policy preferences have no place in that party.
On Monday, Hofstra University will host the first of this year’s three presidential debates. Since 1992, the Commission on Presidential Debates has held three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. It is unclear how much impact the debates actually have on the general election. While candidates who do “better” in a debate tend to have a bounce in the polls, that bounce tends to be temporary.
In most election cycles, a large number of voters are not that familiar with the candidates (particularly those who are running for President for the first time). For swing voters, the debates (and the post-debate coverage of the “highlights”) can either confirm the negatives or the positives associated with a candidate. This year, the two candidates are probably better known than in most cycles (or at least the names are more familiar). As such, it seems likely that it will be much more difficult for either candidate to change how voters see them. However, the candidates will still try.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump — again — expressed his admiration for the strong leadership of Vladimir Putin as compared to the current leadership of the United States. It is understandable why somebody who is the head of a closely-held family business would sympathize with the leadership style of Vladimir Putin. There is a lot of similarity in the ability of such individuals to make decisions for their company or country between such a business and a police state. The leader of a democracy, however, does not have the same ability.
Donald Trump is an unusual presidential candidate. By the time a normal politician reaches the level of running for president, they have a history in government. There are bills that they have sponsored, bills that they have voted for, and things that they have done. This history allows the opponent to run ads based on this past history. Some of these ads will contrast the history to the candidate’s current pledges (e.g., this candidate supported policy X; you can’t believe them when they say that they oppose policy X). Others will use past decisions to say that the candidate has bad judgment or supports bad policies. For Trump, his history is not one of policies but of business practices. (We saw some of this in 2012 when Mitt Romney had a much longer business record than political record, but Trump takes it to the next level.)
No, I don’t think that Trump is actually running on a ticket with Vladimir Putin. It’s just that sometimes, you just can’t tell for sure. Throughout 2015, the conventional wisdom was that, at some point, as the primaries approached, Republican voters would wake up from their flirtation with Donald Trump and realize that Trump is not a Republican, that he supports almost none of the traditional positions that the Republican Party has taken for the past fifty years.
Nowhere is Trump’s lack of respect for issues and principles clearer than when he stumbles into foreign policy. The only discernable principle that Trump has demonstrated so far when it comes to foreign policy is some variation on mercantilism — that the only foreign policy interest that the U.S. has is what’s good for U.S. business, primarily what’s good for the Trump Organization.
The past week has seen several examples of this approach. On NATO, forget the fact that the security guarantees that the U.S. has given eliminates any need for Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, etc., to develop their own nuclear weapons (and all could within months). What matters is how much everyone is paying, as if the U.S. Army was 21st century mercenaries fighting on behalf of the highest bidder.
For all that is different about this year’s presidential race, the one that, for the most part, has been overlooked is that Trump is the head of a closely-held family business. For lawyers, there is a big difference in how we look at publicly traded companies and those that are privately held. If a company is publicly traded, it has to file SEC reports and answer to a diverse group of stockholders. While officers and directors can engage in self-dealing, there is a clear separateness between them and the corporation. When a company is owned by a single person or family, lawyers are more likely to take a very close look at whether the owners treat the corporation’s assets as their personal assets or if they maintain an appropriate degree of separation. In other words, we look at whether the corporation and the person are truly separate or whether the owner treats the business as his alter ego.
Everything that we have seen in this race so far tends to indicate that Donald Trump is the Trump Organization and that the Trump Organization is Donald Trump. Throughout the primary, Trump held a lot of events at Trump Organization properties (with Trump Organization products lavishly displayed), This week at the convention, we saw this overlap in the news reports on Melania’s speech. Aside from what the plagiarism says about Trump Organization business practices and what that say about how Trump would govern, the bigger concern is how the Trump Organization just delegated somebody to work on the speech. (Given that Trump is the owner of the Trump Organization, the campaign laws issues is easily managed. Trump just has the Organization give him a dividend which he contributes to the campaign and the campaign pays back to the Organization — a mere paper transaction that complies with the law.)
If, before the election, Trump sees the Organization as a tool to further his personal ambitions, what happens after the election? Traditionally, a president (or other politician)with significant holdings puts them into a blind trust. In theory, because the politician does not know what changes the trustee may make to the portfolio, this practice prevents them from making decisions to benefit their personal stock holdings (e.g., deciding to change weapons acquisitions from the army to the air force because they hold Boeing stock). With Trump, there is simply no conceivable way that Trump could divest himself of his holdings in the Trump Organization. More importantly, while Trump may step down from day-to-day management, the new CEO will be one of his children (and we have already seen the key role that his children play in advising him). The first time that Trump tries to play hardball with another foreign leader, the logical response will be for that foreign leader to start talking about what that country could do to help or hurt the Trump Organization. If Trump wants China to take a tougher stance on piracy of movies and software, China may offer a good site for a Trump Casino in Hong Kong. Trump wants Mexico to do more on drug trafficking, Mexico may impose some new regulations that effect the Trump property in Baja. When the Trump Organization’s interests diverge from the U.S. interests, whom will Trump favor? The risk that Trump will sacrifice the U.S. to favor his company is simply to large for any reasonable person to take.
Given who was willing to accept a spot on the Republican ticket, Donald Trump (after much back and forth) did the somewhat mature thing and named Governor Mike Pence of Indiana as his running mate. This pick pretty much ends the chance that Trump will face any type of substantial open rebellion at the convention as the Republicans decide to take whatever lumps they will get in the fall. However, there are several significant problems with this ticket.
While most of the media attention is currently focused on whom might or might not still be in consideration for vice-president, a key activity over the next several weeks will be the work of the convention committees.
Because the Democrats give candidates a key role in selecting their delegates (and here in Missouri we had a bit of an uproar at our state convention due to the Sanders campaign exercising its right to trim the number of candidates for at-large delegates), the Rules Committee and the Credentials Committee tend not to be that important. The fight this year was in the Platform Committee which wrapped up its work yesterday in Orlando. There were several changes to the draft platform adopted at the full committee meeting in Orlando, and the revised draft has not yet been posted on the convention’s website (which does have the original version of the draft platform.) There were some issues on which the committee had significant splits between Clinton and Sanders delegates. It is unclear if any of these splits will lead to a minority report and debates on the floor.
The world is an increasingly complex place. The biggest environmental threat is no longer the factory upstream but the practices of factories and power plants around the globe. Terrorist attacks in countries that many have never heard of (or only heard of in relation to a benefit concert) are the lead story on the news (even though most terrorist attacks outside of the U.S. and Europe do not make the news). Terrorist attacks at home are conducted by folks who have lived in the U.S. for an extended period, but who get their “religious” philosophy over the internet from groups based in the Middle East.
It is not surprising that we see similar responses to these issues around the globe. In Greece, the established political parties have been tossed to the side in favor of new parties that vow to defend Greece’s interests in renegotiating its national debt with its European allies. In the United Kingdom, a slim majority votes to leave the European Union in opposition to the EU’s control over much of the economy and immigration. In Australia, new parties centered around single strong figures gain Senate seats will expressing concern about immigration and keeping Australia for Australians. Across Europe, anti-immigrant parties are gaining strength.
It is also not too surprising that we are seeing the same thing in the U.S. As the U.S. slowly approaches the day when a majority of its citizens will be from “minority” groups, we see a plurality of the Republican Party picking a nominee who vows to exclude Hispanics and Muslims from entering the U.S. Even though imports and exports each represent about 10-15% of the eighteen trillion dollar national economy (with the net trade deficit representing about 3% of the national economy), the disruption caused by trade (and other changes like increased automation from modern technology) leaves a significant part of the population feeling battered by the new economy. To these people, we have the same candidate pretending that all we need is a new tougher approach to trade negotiations is all that it will take to turn things around. To terrorism, his answer is that we just need to be more aggressive, even though we have been bombing terrorist facilities for almost two decades.