Salem Political Snark

Hegseth is wrong. Diversity, equity, and inclusion make our military stronger.

Today I watched part of Pete Hegseth's Senate confirmation hearing after Donald Trump nominated him to be Secretary of Defense in his administration. 

It didn't take long for me to conclude that what I'd been hearing about Hegseth was absolutely true. He's spectacularly unqualified to lead our nation's military.

Leaving aside the credible accusations against Hegseth of sexual assault, habitual drunkenness, and inability to competently manage two small non-profit organizations that he was in charge of, Hegseth came across as the weekend Fox News host that seems to be the only reason Trump chose him to head up the Defense Department.

Meaning, he is skilled at evading tough questions, has no commitment to truth, and can recite the MAGA party line with an eloquence honed by his time as a right-wing television personality. 

I'm sure Trump was thrilled with his performance before the committee, even though a Politico story accurately describes what happened. 

Sex assault allegations? Blame “left-wing” media.

Issues with drinking? Those are anonymous smears.

No women in combat? That’s not what I said.

Pete Hegseth used a pattern of denials, memory holes and attacking the “left-wing” media at his Tuesday confirmation hearing for Pentagon chief as he sought to counter controversial issues in his past. And that strategy may work for him — along with Donald Trump’s other troubled nominees.

The president-elect’s Defense secretary pick brushed off questions he didn’t want to answer about everything from the possibility of Trump issuing illegal orders to alleged financial mismanagement in his previous management jobs. He said mainstream news outlets were the reason that allegations of sexual assault and reports of excessive drinking came to light. And he carefully reversed himself on previous comments disapproving of women in combat and gay people in the military.

What struck me about the portions of the hearing that I watched was Hegseth's mentions of "wokeness" in the military, which were echoed by some Republican senators. I paid particular attention to this because I've almost finished reading an excellent book by Tim Urban, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies.

Urban spends quite a few pages decrying what he calls Social Justice Fundamentalism, which he distinguishes from Liberal Social Justice. I agree that Social Justice Fundamentalism is a danger to our society, because usually, or at least too often, advocates of this extreme leftist perspective try to shut down open debate and free expression of competing views. 

For example, criticizing Critical Race Theory, which sees racism as embedded in the very fabric of American society, frequently causes someone to be called a racist just because they have reasonable objections to Critical Race Theory.

But I deeply doubt that this is what has been going on in our military, which appears to be focused on DEI: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. The problem is that Fox News and Republican politicians, notably Trump, have been effective at conflating the excesses of Social Justice Fundamentalism with the mainstream goals of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion -- which is firmly in the realm of Liberal Social Justice.

A bit of Googling turned up a recent article that supports this contention. Is the American military too "woke"? concludes, no.

A theme that keeps dominating certain corners of media commentary is the idea that the U.S. armed forces have become “woke.” In today's vocabulary, this implies that the American military has been overtaken by ideological imperatives that push a far-left political agenda.

Allegedly, U.S. enlisted personnel and officers are being subjected to compulsory exercises in groupthink that devalue the American historical experience, spread contempt for traditional American values and diminish the appeal of military service in favor of other alternatives.

From time to time, concern about political bias in the American armed forces has been voiced both by liberals and conservatives. Some liberals have warned against infiltration of the enlisted ranks by right-wing extremists who regard the American government as fundamentally illegitimate and deserving of overthrow.

Some conservatives have warned against Marxist or postmodern ideas being adopted by government agencies, including the Pentagon, and foisted on officers and enlisted personnel whom they claim are quietly gritting their teeth in resentment.

...For the past 50 years, the United States has had an all-volunteer force. That means that the sociological diversity of the armed forces cannot be imposed by fiat in the same way that a force based on conscription can operate.

Diversity means that the American military is open to all races, genders, gender identities, nationalities and so forth -- but the force is made up from persons who self-select military service as a profession (at least temporarily, although some make a career of it). Recruitment rates therefore are less revealing of the true diversity in the armed forces than are retention rates.

In addition, there is a misunderstanding of what training sessions in diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB) are intended to accomplish, in or outside of the military. If effectively presented, these sessions are not indoctrinations in political messaging, but awareness-raising opportunities for informed discussion and sharing of experiences.

Granted, some bureaucracies excel in reducing nuanced issues into wood chip fragments of imbecility. But this outcome from DEIB information is neither inevitable nor desirable. Civilian workplaces have developed successful programs in support of diversity, and there is little or no evidence that the Pentagon has failed to meet acceptable standards of professional competency in this area.

Trump acting like a jerk in politicizing Los Angeles wildfires

No big surprise, but really disturbing nonetheless.

Donald Trump, who recently was elected president of the entire United States, all 50 of them, is acting like the non-empathetic jerk that he is by making completely unfounded criticisms of California's governor regarding the wildfires that are devastating the Los Angeles area.

If Trump had one ounce of decency in his flabby body, he'd be making statements like any other president-elect would. Like: "My heart goes out to everyone suffering from the fires in southern California. I assure you that once I become president I'll order my administration to do everything possible to help you and your communities recover from this disaster."

Here's a photo of part of the devastation caused by the wildfire that hit Pacific Palisades. Sure seems like every politician, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would feel saddened by this image.

Reports I saw today said that the entire community of Pacific Palisades, which has about 25,000 people, essentially is destroyed. This includes the core of the town: two large grocery stores, high school, restaurants, churches, almost everything. It reminds me of the fire that destroyed the town of Lahaina on Maui, countless lives turned upside down by a wind-fueled wildfire.

Yet Trump is spouting lies about this disaster in a disgusting attempt to score political points. A Washington Post story, "As L.A. burns, Trump blames Newsom -- and California governor pushes back,"  says:

President-elect Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom clashed Wednesday over fires burning out of control in the Los Angeles area, injecting national politics into a growing crisis in the city that Vice President Kamala Harris calls home and that President Joe Biden was visiting for the birth of his great-grandson.

During a news conference Tuesday, Newsom had urged Trump not to “play any politics” during the “precious moments that we have to evacuate.”

But as the fires forced tens of thousands of people to leave their homes and left at least five dead Wednesday, Trump sought to pin the catastrophe on Democratic governance, blaming Newsom’s water management decisions for the fires — an idea that water experts strongly disputed — and noting that some fire hydrants had run dry amid huge demand.

...Trump’s contention that Newsom’s water management decisions were to blame for the severity of the fires is not supported by the facts, multiple water experts told The Washington Post.

“There is no relationship between federal and state water management and the intensity of these fires or the ability of people to fight these fires,” said Jeffrey Mount, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan think tank. Instead, he said, lack of rain and severe winds created dangerous conditions.

“Right now Southern California has ample water supplies, their reservoirs are full — they’re well above historical averages. They do a very good job of managing water. There is no shortage of water in Southern California, that’s just not true,” Mount added.

He said some hydrants are running dry not because the region ran out of water, but because pressure drops with high demand, making it harder to move water around.

Los Angeles’ vegetation, which is highly flammable, exacerbates the problems caused by dry conditions and high winds, said Matthew Hurteau, a forestry vegetation expert and professor at the University of New Mexico.

After two wet years, which led to increased vegetation growth, Los Angeles has received almost no rain since the spring of 2024. I heard a figure of 2/10 of an inch, which is next to nothing. So the vegetation was extremely dry. 

Then came the Santa Ana winds, gusting to as much as 100 miles an hour. The winds turbocharged the wildfires, causing them to grow rapidly. This is January. Usually the Santa Ana winds occur earlier. However, climate scientists predicted that global warming would cause the winds to become stronger and occur later.

Here's the abstract of that 2006 study. 

A new method based on global climate model pressure gradients was developed for identifying coastal high-wind fire weather conditions, such as the Santa Ana Occurrence (SAO). Application of this method for determining southern California Santa Ana wind occurrence resulted in a good correlation between derived large-scale SAOs and observed offshore winds during periods of low humidity. The projected change in the number of SAOs was analyzed using two global climate models, one a low temperature sensitivity and the other a middle-temperature sensitivity, both forced with low and high emission scenarios, for three future time periods. This initial analysis shows consistent shifts in SAO events from earlier (September–October) to later (November–December) in the season, suggesting that SAOs may significantly increase the extent of California coastal areas burned by wildfires, loss of life, and property.

Of course, Trump is a climate change denier. He wants the United States to produce more greenhouse gas pollution, not less. So Trump has neither the intelligence nor the willingness to grasp the truth about the Los Angeles wildfires: they're being stoked by rising temperatures. A Vox story says: 

Wildfires are a natural part of the landscape in California, but the danger they pose to the region is growing because more people are living in fire-prone areas. That increases the likelihood of igniting a blaze and the scale of the damage that occurs when a fire inevitably erupts. California’s growing wildfire threat has rocked the state’s insurance industry and forced regulators to allow insurers to price in the risk of worsening future catastrophes. At the same time, global average temperatures are rising due to climate change, which can prime more of the landscape to burn.

It will take a concerted effort on many fronts to mitigate the wildfire threat, including using more fire-resistant building materials, performing controlled burns to reduce fuels, changing where people live, improving forecasting, pricing insurance in line with the actual disaster risk, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change.

My totally made-up 2024 local and national political awards

It's the last day of 2024.

Time to spend a (very) few minutes inspecting the recesses of my brain about what struck me, politically, during the past year, before I turn my attention to a Very Important Question: will CNN be up with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen consuming copious amounts of alcohol at Times Square, or will this be a dry year for the only New Year's Eve hosts I can stand to watch?

Here's some 2024 awards.

Biggest national fuck-up. Joe Biden ignoring his almost-but-not-quite-explicit pledge to only be a one-term president before turning the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination to a much younger candidate. That ended up happening anyway, but Biden hanging on way past his best by date really hurt the Democratic cause.

Biggest local fuck-up. After five progressives on the City Council voted to approve without a vote by the citizenry an employee payroll tax on people who work in Salem, conservative business interests forced a vote anyway in November 2023, and the tax was soundly defeated. This caused Mayor Chris Hoy's popularity to sink, as he was one of those progressives, which led to a conservative, Julie "I'm not related to Chris" Hoy being elected Mayor of a city that leans progressive, except when progressive politicians are punished for doing stupid things.

Brightest local rising star. City councilor Vanessa Nordyke was the only progressive on the City Council unscathed by the payroll tax fiasco, as she wanted the tax to be voted on by citizens. Nordyke seems destined for higher office, much higher than Mayor.

Brightest national rising star. Trump's gigantic shadow blots out any Republican rising stars. On the Democratic side, I'm hoping some appear, damn soon! I like Michigan's Governor, Gretchen Whitmer. California's Governor Gavin Newsom is appealing, but his hair is too slickly styled for my taste.

People I least want to get an email or text message from ever again. No contest: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. 

Decision that will either turn out horribly or terrific. For Salem, the soon-to-be imposition of downtown parking meters. This will either drive people away from visiting downtown or be the savior of a struggling urban core. For the United States, the attempted removal of millions of undocumented migrants. This will either cement Trump's popularity as a president who shook things up in a good way or earn the wrath of a country that realized too late how valuable those undocumented migrants were to our economy. 

Most pleasingly fanatic local citizen activists. Jim Scheppke and his merry band of library supporters, who have been besieging city officials with calls to make the Salem Library and its West Salem branch a high budget priority. Librarians are known for telling people to keep their voices down. But they've been speaking loudly about preserving library services in the face of upcoming general fund deficits.

Politician I'm really happy lived to be 100. Jimmy Carter. While he was alive, I failed to realize what a good president he was. Now that he's dead, this historians who have been talking about him remind me of Carter's accomplishments, not least of which was recognizing way back in the late 1970s that global warming was an existential threat to humanity. Putting solar panels on the White House roof was a visionary move, even though Ronald Reagan removed them after he beat Carter in the 1980 election.

Jimmy Carter's death reminds us that presidents should be decent and honest

When I got in my car this afternoon and heard talk about Jimmy Carter after I turned on the radio, I knew, or at least strongly suspected, that former President Carter had died. 

My first thought was, "He was such a decent person, the complete opposite of Trump."

Listening to reports of Carter's life -- his upbringing, his presidency, his post-presidency -- reminded me  that it wasn't that long ago that decency, honesty, strong moral character, and putting the broad interest of the nation above narrow party politics were viewed as basic qualities someone aspiring to be president needed to demonstrate.

Those days are gone, given the fact that Trump won the White House in 2016 and 2024. Which is sad, especially for those of us old enough to remember the humility, charm, and accomplishments Jimmy Carter brought to the presidency after he was elected in 1976.

Well, I needed some help from the news programs I listened to as I drove home after learning of Carter's death at the age of 100 to remember his political accomplishments. 

For I'd mostly bought into the oft-repeated conclusion that Carter's presidency was an abject failure, while his post-presidency was a great success marked by charitable endeavors like he and his wife building houses on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.

It's true that "stagflation" and Iran taking 52 American diplomats hostage produced a resounding defeat for Carter's 1980 re-election bid at the hand of Ronald Reagan. However, Carter did some very good things during his single term as president.

The Carter Center summarizes those accomplishments.

Jimmy Carter served as president from Jan. 20, 1977 to Jan. 20, 1981. Significant foreign policy accomplishments of his administration included the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. He championed human rights throughout the world.

On the domestic side, the administration's achievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department of Energy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educational programs under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which doubled the size of the national park system and tripled the wilderness areas.

For me, one of Carter's memorable moments was recollected in a Politico story about him.

But he could also be disarmingly candid, in a political culture that almost never rewards that trait (who can forget his confession to Playboy magazine that he had lusted after women not his wife and committed adultery many times in his heart?)

This seemed quaint at the time, along with being astoundingly obvious. What man hasn't committed adultery many times in his heart? But what Carter said fits with his commitment to Christian ideals and high moral standards. 

Since we have a president-elect who had sex with a pornstar soon after his wife had given birth, then was found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to the pornstar so news of Trump's infidelity wouldn't come out just before the 2016 election, Jimmy Carter's admission of purely mental sexual affairs is refreshing by comparison.

Vice-President Trump looks weak compared to President Musk

Donald Trump has gotten a political lump of coal in his Christmas stocking. He loves to pretend that he's a macho guy, even though he actually is a grossly overweight, out of shape, hair-dying, makeup-wearing narcissist who doesn't demonstrate any genuinely manly qualities.

Now his weakness is on full display, and he hasn't even taken office yet after narrowly defeating Kamala Harris for the presidency. 

It's clear that the genuine leader of the Republican Party isn't Trump, but Elon Musk. That's why Democrats like me are finding great satisfaction in referring to President Musk and Vice-President Trump -- as these titles accurately reflect who is in charge of Washington, D.C.

Trump had no problems with the bipartisan House bill needed to prevent a federal government shutdown at midnight tomorrow, Friday, December 20, until Musk unleashed a salvo of tweets on X calling the bill a horrible piece of legislation.

After President Musk did this, Vice-President Trump meekly did what Musk commanded, come out against the bill. In a pitiful attempt to save face, Trump claimed that he was doing this because the bill didn't contain a provision to raise the debt limit.

Which wasn't an issue before, since raising the debt limit hadn't come up during the months of negotiations between House Republicans and Democrats that resulted in the bipartisan bill to keep the government functioning. 

Sure, technically the current debt limit will be exceeded on January 1, 2025. But practically speaking, the Treasury Department can take steps to avoid a default on the nation's debt until around May of next year.

Trump wanted the debt limit raised now so this will happen during Joe Biden's presidency, not Trump's term in office, since traditionally most Republicans are deeply opposed to deficit spending and detest having to raise the debt limit to accommodate the need to borrow more money to finance federal budget deficits.

It's going to be more than a little embarrassing when Trump needs to get Democratic support to raise the debt limit to accommodate the trillions of dollars in additional deficits due to a renewal of the tax cuts passed in Trump's first term that mainly benefitted large corporations and wealthy individuals.

But that's likely what's going to happen after the House failed today to pass a replacement bill to keep the government open. Thirty-eight Republicans voted against the bill, which included a suspension of the debt limit for two years. 

This doesn't bode well for Trump's legislative outlook during the next four years. He clearly isn't in charge of the Republican Party. Elon Musk is. And Musk is even worse at congressional politics than Trump, which is a low bar. 

What Musk and Trump have in common is a vastly exaggerated sense of their own competence and knowledge. Both men are savvy in a cunning sort of way, but not in an effective way. They stumble along, being rescued by associates who make up for their leadership deficiencies. 

Here we are, a month from Trump's inauguration, and he already has suffered a major legislative defeat. This should be the honeymoon period for Trump. It's a nightmare for him, having his subservience to Musk being put on such an obvious display.

Trump, don't mess with Daylight Savings Time!

Since I was a strong Kamala Harris supporter, it isn't surprising that much of what Trump wants to do in his second term as president worries me. But there are big differences when it comes to my emotional reaction toward Trump's proposals.

If he wants to get back to building his border wall, even if Mexico doesn't pay for it, I say, fine, go ahead. If he wants to pardon some or all of the January 6 rioters, a wrong-headed idea, I say, fine, go ahead. However, if he wants to do away with Daylight Savings Time and make the entire nation stick with Standard Time year-round, I say, no freaking way, keep your political hands off of DST!

Problem is, that's what Trump has said he wants to do.

This is a bad idea. It's also an unpopular idea. In a blog post I wrote in February of this year, when a Republican legislator was trying to get Oregon to adopt permanent standard time (the bill failed), I argued why my state should keep DST. 

National polls show that most Americans prefer permanent daylight saving time.

[In one poll] two-thirds of those polled said they prefer daylight saving time in some form, permanent or part of the year, with just one-third preferring permanent standard time.

We'll be returning to daylight saving time on March 10. I can hardly wait. It's great to be able to walk our dog in the late afternoon when the sun is still shining brightly, instead of close to or after it sets. My mood perks up when daylight saving time returns. 

Sure, it's a bit of an inconvenience to switch clocks twice a year. I adjust to the change in sleep pattern quite easily, though I realize others have more of a problem with this. Well, the solution for them is to press Congress to approve the request of Oregon, Washington, and California to make daylight saving time permanent in the west coast states.

It sure isn't to pass unpopular legislation making standard time permanent. The only states that have done this are Hawaii and Arizona. Note their characteristics: they have lots of sun and are much farther south than Oregon!

A much more comprehensive and geekier argument in favor of Daylight Savings Time appeared in my email inbox today, courtesy of Nate Silver -- whose substack I subscribe to.

Silver is skilled at analyzing complex issues. Here's a PDF file of his nicely researched essay, "Save Daylight Savings Time: Donald Trump and Elon Musk's plan would literally make the average American's life darker."
Download Save Daylight Savings Time - by Nate Silver

Some excerpts:

Last week, President-elect Trump pledged to “eliminate” Daylight Savings Time1, which he called “inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation”. The idea may have been inspired by DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, an agency set to be run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, after Musk and Ramaswamy pitched a similar plan earlier this month.

I suppose I’m not anti-DOGE, though it’s hard to say because its structure and its mandate are unclear. I’d certainly like for it not to cost $2.5 billion to build a single mile of subway track in New York, for instance. But without having any real teeth to implement its policies, DOGE may focus more on gimmicks — and will run the risk of violating the precept of Chesterton's Fence by changing things that are perfectly fine or where the current rules are in place for a reason.

Daylight Savings Time is a perfect example of this. Eliminating it would deprive the average American of 40 minutes of waking daylight in the summer months. This is a terrible idea.

Just to be explicit about what we’re talking about — because I know it can be confusing exactly which is “DST” and which is “standard time” — Daylight Savings Time pushes the clock forward by an hour in the summer months, along with the spring and early fall. (This year, DST was in place from March 10 to November 3.)

For instance, with DST — the status quo — the sun rises in New York at 5:24 a.m. and sets at 8:31 p.m. on the longest day of the year in June. If we reverted to year-round standard time as Trump proposes, those times would shift forward an hour, meaning sunrise at 4:24 a.m. and sunset at 7:31 p.m. No more of those glorious summer evenings spent at Citi Field or Yankee Stadium where it’s still light out until the sixth inning.

True, the twice-annual time changes — you know the drill: spring forward, fall back — are annoying and associated with some tangible consequences, such as an increase in traffic accidents because of sleep deprivation. But to be honest, those consequences are pretty minor. One estimate is that they only amount to about 30 extra traffic deaths per year in a country of 335 million people. And we’re talking about just one hour, something most people can take in stride.

Let’s say you’re living in New York, and a friend who popped into town cancels plans to hang out because they complain of jetlag. If they’re arriving from Paris or Hong Kong — sure, total pass. West Coast? Fine. But what if they’ve flown in from Chicago, just one time zone away? You’d think that person was an incredible loser or was just making an excuse because they clearly didn’t want to hang. If we change a program like Daylight Savings Time that’s been in place for almost 60 years, we need a better reason than that.

...Overall, this is just not a close call. Eliminating DST might even be a political risk for Trump and Musk. Big, top-down-imposed changes that nobody is asking for check all the boxes for an unpopular policy. It would be a highly noticeable change that would affect Americans of all social classes. If people are used to it being bright out at 7 p.m. in the summer — whether for their kid’s softball game or long evening jogs on the beach or al fresco dining in the West Village — they’re going to be very annoyed if that gets taken away.

...So I say keep the status quo — or make only minor tweaks, like letting states opt into year-round DST, which isn’t currently allowed. The twice-annual time changes aren’t such a big burden. Year-round DST is debatable, but year-round standard time is terrible. DOGE can shove it where the sun don’t shine.

Trump voters feel much better about economy now, though nothing has changed

If there ever was any doubt that the opinion of voters on important factual issues facing our country is heavily influenced by their political leaning, a pair of Politico/Morning Consult polls released today has put that doubt to rest.

The title of the Politico story tells the tale: "Trump voters feel very differently about things now that he's won, our new poll shows." Remember how the sorry state of the economy was cited as a major factor in Trump's victory and Harris's defeat?

Well, three weeks have passed since the election. The economy is in virtually the exact same state now as it was on November 5. Yet Trump voters are feeling much better about the economy, and Harris voters are feeling worse about it. The Politico story says:

The economy was the single biggest issue for most voters going into Election Day, with 81 percent of voters in the preelection POLITICO|Morning Consult polling identifying it as “very important” to determining their vote choice. Trump voters put slightly more emphasis on the economy than Harris voters, but it was important across party lines.

What wasn’t the same for Trump and Harris supporters: What they thought of the preelection economy — and what they think now.

A week before the election, just 8 percent of self-identified Trump voters described the economy as on the “right track,” the polling found. But after Trump’s victory, that number swung to 28 percent — still a minority, but a substantial swing in a span of just a few weeks when economic conditions did not change dramatically.

I find this disturbing, though not surprising. We humans have a lot of difficulty seeing reality as it is, since how we'd like it to be all too often sways our perception. 

Inflation, grocery prices, the cost of gasoline, interest rates -- these are quantitative. They are facts, not a matter of opinion. Yet elections aren't decided on the basis of facts, but on how voters feel about the facts. 

And this poll shows that Trump voters looked upon the economy much more negatively prior to the election than after it, while Harris voters had the opposite reaction, albeit not as pronounced. 

Trump voters also became a lot less concerned about voter fraud after Trump won, as did Harris voters to a lesser degree. 

Political scientist explains why Trump won at City Club talk

After a national election, I look forward to Ed Dover explaining the results at a Salem City Club presentation. Dover is a retired political science professor at Western Oregon University. Dover's talk last Friday was his 13th City Club appearance.

Dover began by saying that asking the right questions is key to understanding election results. Adapting the opening song from Hamilton, he said, how could a liar, conman, narcissist, sex with a porn star candidate become president for the second time?

Three factors: (1) Entrenched partisanship, (2) Retrospective voting, (3) Democratic constituencies. 

Entrenched partisanship. Other countries have more variation in their political parties. Sometimes there are 10-12 in a parliamentary system. They come and go, while our Republican and Democratic parties are very old, dating from the late 1700s and mid 1800s. This makes them highly entrenched.

Dover likened this to trench warfare in World War I. At the battle of Verdun, where 800,000 soldiers were killed, the most ground gained by the Germans was 200 yards.

In like fashion, the Democratic and Republican parties are almost equal in strength. Over the last four presidential elections, the Democratic candidates got 49% of the vote and the Republican candidates 48%. With 435 seats in the House of Representatives, it looks like the Democrats will gain 1-2 seats via the recent election. 

Not long ago, parties adapted to their state. In Oregon, at one time we had a Republican Governor, Tom McCall, and two Republican Senators, Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield. They were more liberal than almost every GOP elected official today. 

Now the parties are national. Every statewide office is held by a Democrat, and the 2024 election gave Democrats a supermajority in both the state House and Senate. But only two seats switched parties in the 60-member House and 30-member Senate, one in the House and one in the Senate.

In the Northwest states (Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana), of 24 House seats, 22 stayed with the same party. Republicans picked up a seat in Alaska; Democrats picked up a seat in Oregon.

Nationally, Trump outpaced Harris in the popular vote by just 1.6%, which could be 1.5% after all the votes are counted. In Polk County, out of 16 precincts Harris won six, the same number won by the Democratic candidate since 2000. 

Retrospective voting. This occurs when voters don't look ahead, but to the past, in this case 2019-24. About 1/3 of voters said the economy was their most important issue. They were bothered by higher prices and higher interest rates on mortgages and other debt. 

Dover said that a president doesn't have control of the economy. However, a president is the face of the economy, and that hurt Harris. In 1976 gasoline went from 50 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon after OPEC restricted oil production. Prices for other goods adjusted accordingly. If Reagan had become president in 1976 rather than Carter, likely he wouldn't have been reelected. 

Harris suffered from inflation taking off in the post-covid period. People switched jobs. The United States had a worker shortage, so wages were increased. The average working person was more affected by inflation than the rich. Wealth inequality bothered voters.

Structural problems will continue during the Trump administration, but now Trump will be blamed for economic issues. Inflation may increase again, after a recent decline, if Trump imposes widespread tariffs, which are paid by the purchaser of imported goods, who will pass on the cost to consumers. 

Democratic constituencies. Trump got 2 1/2 million more votes than he did in 2020. Harris got 4 1/2 million fewer votes than Biden did. Why? Many Democrats didn't vote in 2024 after voting in 2020. But likely this isn't a permanent feature of presidential politics. 

In 1992 Democrats controlled the presidency and both the House and Senate. Then in 1994 Democrats didn't vote. In 2000 many Democrats voted for Ralph Nader. If Gore had gotten 1% of the 100,000 votes cast for Nader in Florida, Gore would have become president rather than George W. Bush. In 2008 Obama won the presidency, and Democrats won the House and Senate. In 2010 Democrats lost control of Congress. In 2016 Clinton got money from Wall Street, and 20% of Sanders supporters didn't vote in the general election. 

These days a victorious political party only has 18 months to deal with problems of the past fifty years. Dover said that we may be in an era of one-term presidents. 

During the question and answer period, Dover said:

-- The effect of Biden not campaigning for Harris wasn't evident.
-- Third parties had a minimal effect in 2024.
-- Ranked choice voting failed in Oregon because the pro ads weren't effective.
-- We're #88! Since 87 other countries have elected a woman leader before the U.S.
-- The Wyoming GOP, which heavily controls the state, is the most bitterly divided.
-- Democratic lack of turnout made the difference in the swing states. 
-- In 2028 the Democrats will nominate a similar person, but the economy will work for them next time.

My tips about preserving sanity in the runup to presidential election

It takes one to know one, goes the familiar saying. Applying that to the current political situation, I know  the stress lots of people are under right now, because I'm feeling really stressed myself. 

Today I mentioned in my Tai Chi class that I was going to try to use the Tai Chi principle of relaxed softness on November 5, election day, because I'm going to need all the help I can get in staying calm as the votes are counted and announced.

That led to an interesting mid-class discussion among the half dozen or so students in attendance. It turned out that everybody was feeling pretty much the same way. 

We were all supporters of Harris. But given that each of the three election prediction models that I follow -- Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin (you can't see the actual forecast without subscribing to Silver, which I do), FiveThirtyEight, and the Economist -- are basically showing a 50-50 race, both Harris and Trump supporters have good reasons to be nervous.

So here's some tips from my own frazzled brain about how to preserve your sanity as much as possible in the six days until November 5.

(1) Ponder the wisdom of the lyrics to the Doris Day song from the 1950s, Que Sera Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be). Here's a sample:

When I was just a little girl
I asked my mother, "What will I be?"
"Will I be pretty? Will I be rich?"
Here's what she said to me

"Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be"

(2) In line with the above, read a recent article in The Atlantic by Brian Klaas, "The Truth About Polling: We Don't Know What We Think We Know About How Americans Will Vote." If you're worried about how your favored candidate is faring in the polls, Klaas shows why that worry is misplaced, since polls are pretty bad at capturing what is going to happen in an election. 

Here's how the article starts out. 

Well, it’s that time again: Millions of Americans are stress-eating while clicking “Refresh” on 538’s presidential forecast, hoping beyond hope that the little red or blue line will have made a tiny tick upward. Some may be clutching themselves in the fetal position, chanting under their breath: “There’s a good new poll out of Pennsylvania.”

The stakes of this election are sky-high, and its outcome is not knowable in advance—a combination that most of us find deeply discomfiting. People crave certainty, and there’s just one place to look for it: in the data. Earlier humans might have turned to oracles or soothsayers; we have Nate Silver. But the truth is that polling—and the models that rely primarily on polling to forecast the election result—cannot confidently predict what will happen on November 5.

(3) Keep in mind that in the lifetime of geezers like me (I'm 76), the criteria for what it means to be a good citizen has changed a lot, and not necessarily for the better. When I was in high school, 1962-66, I recall being taught that a good citizen's main duty was to vote.

If you've done that, or plan to do that, congratulations, you're a good citizen. Now relax and wait for your vote and that of your fellow Americans to be counted.

Unless you live in a swing state -- Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada -- there's little you can do at this point to encourage other people who share your political view to vote. 

And despite the large number of texts and emails I've gotten every day for many weeks, asking me to send more money to the Harris campaign (I've already donated twice), I feel fine ignoring those pleas. I haven't read a single one, since the email subject lines alone tell me what B.S. they are. For example, from today's emails: Lots and lots of people are donating today, and now they are hoping you'll do the same.

No they aren't. Most of them are hoping they will never get another donation request from the Harris campaign (I'm sure Trump supporters feel the same way). Plus, it's too late for more money to make a difference.

Of course, I'm expecting that after November 5, I'm going to get many more texts and emails asking me to contribute so the Harris campaign can defend against Trump's attempt to overturn the results -- assuming Harris is victorious.

(4) No matter the outcome of the election, know that your life will go on pretty much as it always has. You'll have the same family, the same friends, the same co-workers, the same acquaintances. You'll eat the same food, exercise in the same way, go to the same places. The main difference is that once the outcome is known, you won't be worrying about that any more, since it will be a fact rather than an anxiety. 

Sure, new worries will pop up. You'll fret over how the newly elected president is doing, whether or not you voted for him/her. That's the nature of our minds. Instead of saying "I think, therefore I am," Descartes could have said, "I worry, therefore I am." 

But in line with the Two Arrows adage of Buddhism, when you worry, try not to worry about your worrying. 

Trump campaign is self-destructing. Great news for Harris.

Like lots of Democrats, I worry incessantly about how well the Harris campaign is doing. Even though the presidential race is essentially a toss-up, us Democrats fret that Harris isn't doing better, while Trump supporters look at the same toss-up and think, "We're going to win for sure."

But today I'm feeling a lot more optimistic. 

Right on schedule, with just over a week to go before the election, the Trump campaign is self-destructing in plain view of voters. The clearest sign of this is the disastrous Trump rally in Madison Square Garden Sunday night. 

Trump and other speakers were their usual racist, hateful, misogynistic, insulting selves.

That would have made headlines by itself, since this is when presidential campaigns make their closing arguments to the American public, and the Trump campaign is getting darker and more negative as November 5 nears. 

However, the icing on the cake for those of us strongly opposed to Trump ever inhabiting the White House again was a supposed comic (he wasn't at all funny) making a lame joke about Puerto Rico.

In his joke, Hinchcliffe, known for his comedy podcast Kill Tony, said: "There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico."

There was little reaction from the attendees at the Trump rally, other than shock that someone would go on stage, stand at a podium displaying a Trump - Vance sign, and say something so stupid. I can only imagine that the reaction from Harris campaign staff was much stronger, since this was a gift to them.

It spurred Bad Bunny, a highly popular Puerto Rico singer, to endorse Harris. And the Harris campaign is publicizing the "floating island of garbage" statement to Puerto Rico immigrants in swing states, notably including hundreds of thousands in Pennsylvania. 

Given how close polls show the race is between Harris and Trump, small shifts in voter preferences can have a big impact. The fallout over the Hinchcliffe's remark is impacting the campaigns.

One day after the rally, the fallout over the vulgar and racist comments made by some guests in the pre-program continue to reverberate across the campaign. Republican allies of the former president have had to publicly defend Puerto Rico and denounce the comments. Puerto Ricans in the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania are planning to protest Trump’s rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Tuesday. And Harris’ campaign has cut a new digital ad over the rally comments and held events with Latino surrogates in Philadelphia.

There's more good news for Harris. Worries about Black men deserting Harris appear to be overblown.

A new NAACP survey found Republican Donald Trump’s support among young Black men has dwindled with a little more than a week to go before Election Day.

The poll found Black men under 50 years old decreased their likelihood of voting for the former president, dropping from 27 percent to 21 percent since a previous survey asking the same question was released last month.

Researchers involved with the survey say Vice President Kamala Harris’ support among this bloc jumped from 51 percent to 59 percent over that same time frame.

“What we know from these data is that the voter apathy is being concentrated among folks who already had a plan to vote for Donald Trump, and so that’s really the big takeaway here,” said Joshua Doss of HIT Strategies, which conducted the survey.

...While the overall support among all Black voters for Trump is down slightly in the new NAACP survey — 11 percent compared to last month’s 13 percent — it’s roughly the same percentage of the Black vote Trump received in 2020. Another 9 percent said they were undecided.