About 5000 Votes Still To Be Counted In Anchorage Election

I talked to the Municipal Deputy Election Clerk (that means she works in the Clerk's office and is the Deputy Clerk in charge of the elections) Amanda Moser this morning.  I had two questions:

1.  How come there were already 2076 votes already posted on the 20:03pm unofficial election results?  [Those results are no longer available online, but I put them up at that link.]  Where were these votes from?

2.  How many votes were still to be counted?

Let me answer Question 2 first.  It's a much shorter answer and comes up again in Question 1. There are about 5000 votes to be counted.  These include absentee by mail that came in yesterday and today (and will trickle in for a few more days), absentee in person, and questioned ballots.  Absentee in person means people voted at one of the polling places, like Loussac library, before the election.  Questioned votes are for people who voted out of their precincts or didn't have ID, or other irregularity that caused the precinct worker to have questions about the voter.

Question 1:  What were those 2076 votes already counted before any of the precincts had brought their boxes to election central?

Amanda Moser told me that these were absentee by mail votes that the Clerk's office had received BEFORE Tuesday.  The office decided that since they had them already, it might be interesting to just get them up right away after the election, so people would have some numbers to look at as soon as the polls closed.  I didn't remember that from previous elections and Moser confirmed they hadn't done that in previous elections.

You can see those early numbers in my first post from last night.  They were much more conservative than the actual outcome.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 3 - SEAT DPERMAN, Ira 40 11.66%DARDEN, Dustin 11 3.21%CROFT, Eric 114 33.24%TROMBLEY, Adam 178 51.90%Write-in Votes 0 0.00%

Trombley was leading with 51.9% of the vote among these early voters.

In the last count, he got 33% to winner Croft's 45%.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 4 - SEAT FALLEVA, Ron 111 39.78%TRAINI, Dick 164 58.78%Write-in Votes 4 1.43%

This race ended up Traini 62% to Alleva 35%.  Not as big a change.  

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 5 - SEAT HDUNBAR, Forrest 188 45.97%GALES, Terre 219 53.55%Write-in Votes 2 0.49%

Gales went from 53% over Dunbar's 45%  in this first set of ballots to Dunbar 60% and Gales 39% in the latest count.  

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 6 - SEAT JSCHIMSCHEIMER, Mark 76 13.82%WEDDLETON, John 170 30.91%TAYLOR, Treg 301 54.73%Write-in Votes 3 0.55%

The latest count in this race has Weddleton ahead 43% over Taylor's 40%.  Weddleton leads by 290 votes.  There are 5000 or so votes yet to count city wide.  The total counted so far is 43,000 and this Assembly race had 10,800 votes, just under 25%.  So, there are maybe 1200 votes left to be counted from the absentee by mail and in-person votes.  For Taylor to win, he'd need to get 300 more votes than Weddleton.  It would have to be at least 750 to 450.  Or, put another way, he'd have to pick up 62% of the remaining votes.  (And there was one more candidate in the race I'm not even considering.)   That's highly unlikely.  He didn't even have that big a margin in this early vote that was clearly leaning right.  


SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A
DAVIS, Bettye 840 44.03%
HUGHES, Brent 1050 55.03% Write-in Votes 18 0.94%

This one really turned around.  Davis won with 56% of the vote to 42%.  

SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT B
SCHUSTER, Kay 693 37.77%
NEES, David 604 32.92%
MARSETT, Starr 519 28.28%

I didn't even know who Kay Schuster was.  Her website is pretty bland.  But there was a Republican Women's fundraiser for her at McGinley's pub with supporters including former Mayor Sullivan.  Nees has run as a  conservative in the past.  

The last count had Schuster with 35% and Marsett with 34%.  

This one is still too close to call.  With 5,000 votes outstanding in this city wide race , Marsett would have to get 40% of the remaining votes.  Not as big a challenge as Treg Taylor has in his Assembly race, but still a formidable challenge.  Particularly if the remaining votes - mostly absentee by mail or in person - have any sort of conservative leaning as the first set of absentee by mail votes had.  


So, either conservatives are more likely to vote by mail, or the Republicans did a better job of getting their voters to vote by mail.  In either case, that first set of votes we got last night had a significantly more conservative tinge than the eventual outcomes.  

Some other issues from yesterday's elections came up in my conversation with Amanda Moser, but I need to review my notes more carefully before I post on that.  It involves aging voting machines and memory cards which caused machines not to read people's cards the first, second, or third times, and required some complete recounting for some precincts.


[Blogger notes.  When I realized that answering Question 2 first made more sense, why didn't I just make that one Question 1?  Good question.  I thought about switching the question numbers around.  But Question 1 really was my first question, the one that got me to call the Clerk's office to ask.  

I'd also note that I did contribute to two of the candidates mentioned in this post.  I know old time journalists got taught that to remain impartial, they shouldn't ever contribute to a campaign.  Some even believe they shouldn't vote.  I already had trouble as an academic about having to use language that imagined that I was some objective observer who had no opinions.  Of course reporters have opinions.  Some can step back and write reasonably objectively and some can't.   I think it's better to just state your biases up front and let the reader consider how that bias might have impacted the story.  

In this case, my reporting on specific races is as objective as it can be - just citing numbers and probabilities.  And where I mention loaded words like ' conservative' and 'liberal,' I'm not voicing any opinion that hasn't been voiced already by people seen as on the left or on the right.  So I don't think it's necessary to mention the specific candidates I wrote checks for.  Readers who need to know, can look it up on the APOC website. I doubt it will be a surprise to regular readers.]

Demboski, Croft, Traini, Dunbar Look Like Winners, Other Races Closer

Demboski, Croft, Traini, Dunbar  look like they are winners.


The South Anchorage race is too close to call.

Bettye Davis is likely the winner in her School District race, the other race is too close.

The Tax proposition is likely to pass - this is the one former mayor Dan Sullivan supported.

The props look mostly yes.  The school bonds are not certain.  The Girdwood proposition looks shaky.  Marijuana tax is a landslide.

You can see the exact numbers for Assembly and School Board here.  And the propositions here.
(These links update, so the numbers you get will depend when you link.  I'm linking now to the 21:57pm edition.)

58% of Precincts Reporting - Numbers Look More Like Expected

Here's the 21:39 report with 58% of precincts reporting.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 2 - SEAT A	Votes	Percent
Demboski	1252
Begich	811	39.34%
Write In Votes	12	0.58%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 3 - SEAT D
Perman	950	15.52%
Darden	287	4.69%
Croft	2943	48.07%
Trombley	1920	31.36%
Write In Votes	22	0.36%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 4 - SEAT F
Alleva	1179
Traini	2041	62.55%
Write In Votes	43	1.32%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 5 - SEAT H
Dunbar	2478	59.06%
Gales	1704	40.61%
Write In Votes	14	0.33%
ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 6 - SEAT J
Schimscheimer	497	14.25%
Weddleton	1468	42.10%
Taylor	1498	42.96%
Write In Votes	23	0.69%
SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A
Davis	11,394	57.79%
Hughes	8126	41.22%
Write In Votes	196	0.99%
SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT B
Schuster	6486	34.91%
Nees	5472	29.45%
Marsett	6406	34.48%

Very First Anchorage Election Returns Show Conservative Surge

It's not clear what these votes represent.   It says 0.0% of 124 precincts reporting.

So, are these early votes?  There really aren't enough of them and in the past these have been counted after all the other votes were counted.

Did someone hack the machines and get things primed with a starting bias?  (Just asking questions that pop into my mind.)  I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation.  But let's get the starting numbers documented.

This is for 20:03 pm - so no votes have even had time to get downtown to the election headquarters yet.

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 2 - SEAT A
DEMBOSKI, Amy 253 72.49%
BEGICH, Nicholas 94 26.93%
Write-in Votes 2 0.57%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 3 - SEAT D
PERMAN, Ira 40 11.66%
DARDEN, Dustin 11 3.21%
CROFT, Eric 114 33.24%
TROMBLEY, Adam1 78 51.90%
Write-in Votes 0 0.00%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 4 - SEAT F
ALLEVA, Ron 111 39.78%
TRAINI, Dick 164 58.78%
Write-in Votes 4 1.43%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 5 - SEAT H
DUNBAR, Forrest 188 45.97%
GALES, Terre 219 53.55%
Write-in Votes 2 0.49%

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 6 - SEAT J
SCHIMSCHEIMER, Mark 76 13.82%
WEDDLETON, John 170 30.91%
TAYLOR, Treg 301 54.73%
Write-in Votes 3 0.55%

SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A
DAVIS, Bettye 840 44.03%
HUGHES, Brent 1050 55.03% Write-in Votes 18 0.94%

SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT B
SCHUSTER, Kay 693 37.77%
NEES, David 604 32.92%
MARSETT, Starr 519 28.28%




[UPDATE: Here is the first report for the propositions.]

PROP 1 ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
YES 746 35.93%
NO 1330 64.07%
PROP 2 MARIJUANA SALES TAX
YES 1703 81.37%
NO 390 18.63%
PROP 3 AREA SAFETY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
YES 1243 59.13%
NO 859 40.87%
PROP 4 PARKS & REC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
YES 907 43.33%
NO 1186 56.67%
Prop 4 Parks and Rec Capital Improvements
YES 766 44.07%
NO 972 55.93%
PROP 5 ARDSA STORM & DRAINAGE
YES 1059 50.36%
NO 1044 49.64%
Prop 5 Ardsa & Strom and Drainage Bonds
YES 805 52.72%
NO 722 47.28%
PROP 6 ANCHORAGE FIRE SERVICE AREA FIRE PROTECTION BONDS
YES 1276 60.56%
NO 831 39.44%
Prop 6 Anchorage Fire Service Area Protection Bonds
YES 1203 60.67%
NO 780 39.33%
PROP 7 ANCHORAGE METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE AREA FACILITIES BONDS
YES 1101 52.35%
NO 1002 47.65%
Prop 7 Anchorage Metropoliain Police Service Area Facities
YES 1093 52.40%
NO 993 47.60%
PROP 8 TAX INCREASE LIMITATION
YES 1444 69.56%
NO 632 30.44%

This Seemed Obvious Last November

An LA Times article Saturday said:

"For months, as Donald Trump lurched from controversy to controversy, commentators marveled that his voters remained loyal: Trump is impervious to political attack, some said.
Not so. Trump wasn't immune; analysts were just failing to look at the whole board."

I don't usually write, "I told you so" posts, but when I read that, I couldn't help but think about this post I put up in November:

Trump's Poll Numbers: 70-80% Of Republicans Support Someone Else

That post said that when the media focus his poll numbers and on the percent of votes Trump was getting in the multi-candidate Republican primaries, they were missing the bigger picture - that most Republicans were voting against Trump.  The post stepped back even further and said if you counted all voters - Republicans, Democrats, and all the various independent voters - he was only pulling about 7% of all voters.  He was the biggest fish in the relatively small Republican party pond.  But in the bigger pond, he was pretty small.

At that point I was only saying how many people were voting for others, I didn't have a basis to say that the rest had a strong unfavorable impression of him.  But the LA Times article says that evidence is now available.

"While Trump’s polarizing campaign did not dent his standing with core supporters in the Republican primaries, it took a punishing toll on how the rest of the electorate views him. Trump’s image, which was poor even before he ran for president, has plunged to an unequaled low. Among scores of major political figures measured in polls over the last 30 years, Trump’s numbers are the worst.
If Trump were to win the GOP presidential nomination with his current public image, he would be the most unpopular nominee in the history of U.S. opinion surveys, veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart said in an email."

The article goes on to explain why people think Trump has no chance to win the presidency if he gets the Republican nomination.  While I think that's the case - and said so in the November post - I'd haggle a little with this point made in the LA Times article:

"Many examples certainly exist of public figures who have succeeded in improving damaged reputations.  .  .
Usually, however, political candidates' images get worse, not better, during a campaign. Democratic strategists are counting on that."

I would argue that

• historically, candidates haven't gotten the primary exposure of the 2012 and 2016 Republican primaries (all the multi-candidate Republican debates and all the social media exposure), so I'd expect the candidates today are better known and much of the damage is already done
• candidates who have gotten past nominations had much better approval ratings going into the election, so it would be more likely for their ratings to dip
• if Trump does get the nomination, I expect he'd change his presentation to reflect his new audience, though it's hard to be sure what is bluster for the far right (that could be changed) and what is true Trump (that would be harder to change)

• 
  

[Sorry for reposting, Feebburner issues again.]

Trump Firing Slovenian Born Wife For American Born Spouse

There has been some low level sniping about the most anti-immigration presidential candidate in anyone's memory having had two immigrant wives and only one American born wife.  Apparently the ratio is going to be evened up.

Trump was almost 29 when he married his first wife, Czech born Ivana, in 1977.  Although she was three years younger, Trump was her second husband.  By the time she was 43, he lost interest in her and she divorced him in 1992 because he was carrying on with American born model Marla Maples.  They married in December 1993, about two months after their son was born.  Maples was 30 years old when they married, 17 years younger than Trump.

This marriage to an American born woman lasted only six years, until Maples was 36 in 1999.

Trump didn't remarry until 2005, to another foreign born woman,  also from the former Soviet bloc - this time to another model,  Melania Knauss, from Slovenia.  She was 23 years younger than Trump.   Eleven years later and they are still married.

But Trump's supporters, contrasting his love for immigrant woman to his anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric, have begun to question whether Trump really walks his talk.

Pressure increased with the December release of Michael Moore's latest film Where To Invade Next?, which included a section on Slovenia's free college education for all students, including Americans.  Moore interviewed students at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, where education is free*.  

Given that one of Bernie Sanders' key proposals is free public university education for all, it's particularly galling to Trump's supporters that Trump's wife actually attended the University of Ljubljana  (and knows how to pronounce it), the very university Moore featured in what Trump fans see as an American hating film.

Knauss is also pushing 36 now, and pundits are speculating it is time to switch to a younger, American-born wife, with whom Trump's supporters would be much more comfortable in the White House.  I wasn't able to track down any information on the mystery lady.

More on this story can be found here.

*I met a Slovenian in Anchorage this week and I mentioned the free college education featured in the movie.  He made a face and said, "You get what you pay for."

Alaska Democrats Caucus Heavily For Bernie Sanders

My district voted 238 for Sanders and 80 for Clinton.  As I was walking out I checked at the desk that was collecting the tallies and was told that the rural districts were mostly reported and had a similar break down - 3-1 for Sanders.

Some numbers first.   I've gone through the division of elections list of registered voters, updated March 4, 2016.  I've gone through each district and collected the

total of registered Anchorage Democrats:  32,485    (The vast majority of registered voters have not identified a political party.)

As I got near West High I was glad I'd gone by bike because people were parking  and walking up to a half a mile away.   There was a huge line when I arrived about 10am and I was told the auditorium, largest auditorium in the state and seats 2000.)

where they were having presentations, was already full.

[Photo:  the line stretches out the same in the other direction.  The target was the auditorium entrance which is the highest point in the building ahead]

So, the auditorium already had about 6% of the Anchorage registered voters.



It turned out I had to go to a table for my precinct which was on the other end of a very crowded hallway.  There were no open paths to go in either directions.  Every now and the there was an opening and a trickle of people went one way - usually the opposite direction from where I needed to go.

A couple of shots of the crowd I was in.

I'd guess there were at least another couple of thousand,  (which would add up to at least 12% of the Anchorage Democrats)  if not more just in the hallways trying to get to their desk to sign in and get a district card.  It turned out my desk was next to another entrance and it seemed to make more sense to go out and walk around the building rather than try to fight my way back through the throng.

It turned out there were still lots of folks trying to get into the building from this entrance.

And they couldn't get in because the fire marshall was there and they weren't letting people into the building.  (This made Loussac Libray look like a wilderness area.]

How many still outside or already into caucus rooms?  Conservatively, I'd say maybe another 1000 which would get the totals up to about 18% of registered Democrats.   But that number is misleading because a lot of people were registering to become Democrats on the spot.  Is that a high number for caucusing?  I checked Iowa caucus number for Democrats - the report I saw didn't yet have the total number but said there were 240,000 who caucused in 2008.   I check the Iowa Democratic registration for January 2008 and it was just over 600,000.  So that's about 40%.  But that's a big caucus state that gets lots of attention because it caucuses first in the country.  Alaskans aren't really used to caucusing.  The last caucus was 2008 for Obama and I'm trying to compare the turnout in my head to then.  It was at a different location, on a weeknight.  The building was packed, but not quite as bad as today.  But I think things were spread out differently so you didn't have the registration desks in the hallway blocking the halls.

As I walked around the building I passed the fire vehicle.  There was also a big truck.

Eventually, I made it to the rooms designated for my district.  One for Clinton and one for Sanders.  But they'd already liberated a second, and then a third, for Sanders.  The picture above is the original Sanders room.

As I said, my district voted 238 to 80 for Sanders over Clinton.

On the way out I stopped at the desk that was collecting all the totals.  My district was one of the first
to turn in their numbers.  But the reports from other districts in the rural areas were in and I was told the numbers were roughly the same proportion for Sanders.





Right now Google has posted this:

"Alaska caucus Last updated Mar 26, 2016 at 2:01 PM AKT REPUBLICANDEMOCRATIC Mar 26 16 delegates 38% reporting
Delegates Votes
Sanders (won) 9 78.7% 181
Clinton 0 21.3%
49 Source: AP "

A. Fog Of Politics B. Privacy And Security

A.  Fog of Politics

As I get ready to head out to the Democratic caucus in Anchorage this morning, the world outside is shrouded in fog.

OK, I apologize, Part B will live up to its name much better than Part A.








B.  Privacy and Security

Image from The Intercept

There was a live panel discussion on Privacy and Security last night in Arizona that was also online.  It's definitely worth watching.  Noam Chomsky, Edward Snowden, and Glen Greenwald.  If you know who those people are, you know this is worth watching.  If you don't know who they are, you should at least look them up.   Nuala O’Connor, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, was the moderator.

Here's the link:  https://theintercept.com/a-conversation-about-privacy/

The discussion ranged from definitions of privacy and security to the tension between them.  They talked about the top secret and other designations and how no one has identified anyone who has been killed because of Snowden's leaks, or even the Wikileaks.  How most of the things labeled top secret are for the security of the government officials, not for the security of the public.  It's a very thoughtful and rational discussion.  Everyone should watch this, and contrast it to some of the shrill and thoughtless rhetoric of the political debates.

It's long.  You can watch it in two sittings or just listen to it while you're doing mindless household tasks.

One topic that came up was how individuals can secure their own lives and this morning on Twitter,  Martin Shelton has linked to his own guide on how to do this - Securing Your Digital Life Like a Normal Person

More on the caucus when I get back tonight.

Why I Live Here: 10 Minute Interview With Jane Sanders

The Alaska Dispatch News said that Bernie Sanders' wife would be in Alaska for three days and that she was going to meet with media this afternoon.  I emailed the Sanders Alaska campaign to find out where and didn't have that much time to get my stuff together and go down to the Lakefront Hotel (the old Millennium on Spenard).

When I got to the hotel there were several other news people, a couple of whom I knew.  It was then I learned this wasn't just going to be a press conference, but that we would each get five minutes one-on-one with Jane Sanders.

Living in Anchorage has meant, on a number of occasions, that I've been able to meet people whom I would never meet if I lived in LA or Seattle.  We're a small place and when important people are here, there's much more chance to connect with them.

So below is my video of our talk.  I normally have talked to people standing up and hold my camera close to my face and the interviewee.  But we sat at a table and and I put my camera on the table which resulted in a terrible camera angle, with Jane Sanders seeming to be looking up.  She was looking at me.  So I apologize to Mrs. Sanders for messing that up.  But I think it's still worth posting the whole ten minutes (as it turned out) of our conversation.

I also seem to have cut out the beginning of my first questions which gives the context for the end of it that starts the video. Here are the questions I asked.  The first part of Question 1 didn't get recorded so it's helpful to have the whole question here.

Question 1:  The symbolic value of electing an African-American president in 2008 was pretty big.  It sent an important message to African-Americans and other people of color, and to the world.  Electing Hillary Clinton would also have an important symbolic value for women.  What does Bernie Sanders have to offer to women to offset the symbolic value of electing a woman?

Question 2:  The Sanders campaign has been about revolution.  I get that Part A of the revolution is getting elected.  But then, what is Part B?

Jane Sanders mentioned making a college education accessible to all, which led to a third question about the corporatization of universities negatively affecting both faculty and students.




Later, there was a gathering of Bernie Sanders supporters in the hotel.  I decided to stay and see how that went.  I'd guess there were between 150 and 170 people there, filling the room.  There was no public announcements that I know other than on the Sanders' Alaska website.   It was a highly enthusiastic crowd and it seemed to me there were lots of folks under 40 and a reasonable collection of folks over 60.  Those in-between were underrepresented.  I'll try to put up more on that later.

The Alaska Democratic Caucus is Saturday.  I also got a phone call this afternoon that hooked me into a conference call from Bill Clinton.  So maybe this is a teeny taste of what Iowans must feel like before their primary.

What Merrick Garland And Donald Trump Have In Common

[Warning:  I'm just letting my brain work out a bit here.  I'm trying to puzzle out some meaning from the bizarre stories we get from the so called news these days.  Consider these rough notes on strange times for future reference.]

Basically, the Republican establishment is doing all they can to block both their nominations.


Part 1:  What little birdie is tweeting into Sen. McConnell's ear?

McConnell has stated (in slightly different words) that the constitution gives the president only three years per term and so the president shouldn't put forward a nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.  And so the Senate will not hold hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland.  Where is this specious argument coming from?

• The Federalist Society which has been working so hard to take over US judgeships in order to get courts to take stronger pro-business, anti-regulation decisions?  I can understand their frustration as their years of planning and grooming look wasted as the Republican party implodes.  
• CEO's who have court cases coming up before the Supreme Court?  As I understand it, a new justice wouldn't be able to weigh in on cases that have been argued already at the Supreme Court.  But there are plenty more cases in the pipeline.  This would make the most sense because these are people who have a short term interest in not having one more liberal judge on the court before their case gets heard.  

Think Progress writes:

"McConnell responded that he 'can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.'”

They'd never want to do that, but sometimes you have to do things you'd rather not do.

The article then goes on to discuss the court cases the NRA and NFIB have had before the Supreme Court and how they are trying to get the court to approve something Congress explicitly voted down.  I'm sure other groups with such interests in the composition of the Supreme Court have access to McConnell and his friends.


Otherwise, I can't fathom McConnell's logic, as he argues today that Garland's nomination won't be heard even after the November elections.   But I know most things make sense when you know all the details.  Maybe if we knew who McConnell lunches with and what they tell him we'd understand this better.

There's got to be more to McConnell than most of us get to see.  He's been married to two strong women.   His first wife was Sherrill Redmon who is a feminist scholar and was the head of Smith College's women's collection.  His second wife is Taiwan born, former Bush Secretary of Labor and head of the Peace Corps, Elaine Chao.

What he says about Garland makes little sense, except when you're surrounded by people who reinforce your skewed view of the world.  After all, it doesn't look like, at this point, the Republicans are going to retake the White House.  If we get the second President Clinton, she'll likely appoint a more liberal candidate.  And if the Republican party continues on its current track, the Democrats could retake the Senate.  One letter writer in the LA Times, suggested President Clinton could appoint the soon to be out-of-work Barack Obama.  But he might have to recuse himself in cases arising from his administration, so that probably isn't a good idea.

Or maybe McConnell's buddies are planning a coup after the November elections, but then getting rid of a Supreme Court justice or two would be a minor problem.

Part 2:  And then the New York Times reports:

"Republican leaders adamantly opposed to Donald J. Trump’s candidacy are preparing a 100-day campaign to deny him the presidential nomination, starting with an aggressive battle in Wisconsin’s April 5 primary and extending into the summer, with a delegate-by-delegate lobbying effort that would cast Mr. Trump as a calamitous choice for the general election."

Who are these 'Republican leaders"?  The article doesn't say much.  In normal times, one would think that a Republican Senate Majority leader would be one of them, but McConnell is never mentioned.  We get:

• " William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, has circulated a memo to a small number of conservative allies detailing the process by which an independent candidate could get on general-election ballots across the country."
• "David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth, which has spent millions on ads attacking Mr. Trump, said his group met on Wednesday and concluded it was still possible to avert Mr. Trump’s nomination."
• "Trump opponents convened a series of war councils last week. . ."
• "To justify rejecting Mr. Trump in Cleveland, Republicans say they will have to convince both delegates and the public that it was not the party’s obligation to hand him a nomination he did not secure on his own.
• 'The burden is on Trump, not the party, if he fails to clinch the nomination,'  said David Winston, a Republican pollster who advises the House leadership. 'He has presented himself as the ultimate dealmaker, and it’s on him to close this one.'” "Mitt Romney, the party’s nominee in 2012, attempted to bridge that divide on Friday by revealing that he would support Mr. Cruz in Utah. . ."
•  "About two dozen conservative leaders met Thursday at a private club in Washington, where some pushed for the group to come out for Mr. Cruz to rebut the perception that the stop-Trump campaign was an establishment plot. 'If we leave here supporting Cruz, then we’re anti-establishment,' said one participant, who could be heard by a reporter outside."
• ". . . Erick Erickson, an influential conservative commentator, who convened the meeting."

I understand the NY Times writer interviewed people who didn't want to be named, but he's left it pretty vague.  Who are these 'conservative leaders' and who in the Republican party would acknowledge them as leaders?

Erick Erickson, by the way, according to Wikipedia, is a 40 year old blogger, newscaster who was born in Louisiana, went to school in Dubai from age 5 to 15 while his father worked for Conoco-Philips.  This is who convenes two dozen conservative leaders?  Just a few years ago, blogger was a dirty word.


This opposition to Trump makes more sense to me than the opposition to Garland.  In fact it's gratifying to know that top level conservatives are appalled by Trump's racism and inciting violence.  Because it marks progress. Racism and violence never seemed to bother them in the past.  They embraced the Southern Strategy and have fought against voting rights for people of color and supported law and order legislation that disproportionately imprisoned blacks, they're against immigration reform, they love the NRA and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh.  So to oppose violent racists is progress.

I can't help thinking it's really more about Trump's unpredictability and the fear of losing the power they have in Washington.   And all the things they've been able to do all these years without any serious accountability to the public.

But I don't have access to their texts or phone calls, so I really don't know specifics.  But with stories like these about 'leading conservatives' plotting to keep Trump from getting the nomination, I'm sure they're going to win the hearts and minds of their Tea Party core.

Supreme Court Showdown

McConnell in February:

“'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said in a statement."

And today we get from NPR:

"HATCH: What I know about Judge Garland - he's a good man, but he shouldn't be brought up in this toxic environment. I'm tired of the Supreme Court being used as a battering ball back and forth between both sides.

Which toxic environment is he talking about?  The one that began with McConnell saying that the Republicans' top priority was to make Obama a one-term president?  The one where Republicans have been holding up hearings on most Obama nominated judges?  The one where Republicans have voted over 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act?    I think if sometimes Obama gets a bit touchy, it's understandable.   But if one really believes a piece of legislation is detrimental, shouldn't they fight to prevent it?  Yeah sure, but when every piece of legislation is a crisis and no judges can be approved in the first, second, or third, let alone fourth year of Obama's term, then you have to rethink your position.

MCCONNELL: It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election."

Scalia died.  Obama is responding to that vacancy on the court, by doing his constitutional job of nominating Supreme Court judges.  Obama didn't pick when Scalia died.  The judge he's nominated - Merrick Garland - appears to be the least political judge he could have found who would also be acceptable to his own party.  The Republicans have had a long term strategy through the Federalist Society to turn out judges who will be decidedly more conservative in their decisions.  Leaving vacant judgeships is less of a concern for Republicans in the Senate than preventing liberal or even apolitical judges from being appointed.

There's no question that Democrats are just as concerned about a judge being appointed who would overturn Roe v Wade and other key issues as the Republicans are concerned about approving judges who would affirm Roe v Wade.  But the president was elected and his level of popularity is higher than the Senate's, despite how much he's been bashed by the right for the last seven years.

It is the job of the US Senate to approve or reject the president's nominations to the court.  Not holding a hearing is a form of rejection.  One could argue the constitution doesn't require them to hold hearings, but if they refuse to confirm most judges (and other appointments) there comes a time when government is unworkable.  And the dysfunction becomes worse than any specific appointment could be.  Presidential year and  yearlong vacancies are rare.  The last Supreme Court approval in an election year  was  Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy  in 1988.   The last year long (363 days) vacancy on the court was over 45 years ago - in 1969.

Obama's nominee - Merrick Garland- appears to be the most appealing nominee (to today's Republicans) a Democratic president could make.  He's white.  He's male.  And he's 63 years old. That makes him older than Roberts (who has served 10 years already), Sotomayor (who has served six years), and Kagan (who has served five years.)  He's apparently not ideological.  But still, even if he makes decisions based on the law and the facts, that's not good enough for Republicans.

Republican intransigence has paid off for them by forcing Obama to nominate someone with a less liberal bent than he might have preferred.

But refusing to even hold hearings could backfire on the Republicans.  First, it could look like - to independent voters - as though they were simply blocking the candidate in hopes a Republican president will give them a better option.  And few would argue believably that this isn't the case.  Such voters might sit out the election or vote Democratic.

Second, if they don't win the presidency in November, then the next president is likely to go for a much more liberal supreme court nominee.  And given the meltdown in the Republican party, there's a good chance that many conservative voters could simply sit out the election.  If that happens, the Democrats could even take back the Senate making confirmations easier.

The Republicans do have an out.  They can wait to see how the November elections go and then approve Merrick after the election.  Should the Democratic candidate win along with a change in party leadership in the Senate, I suspect they will quickly ratify Merrick before the new president is in office.

It would be nice though, if McConnell would just say:  "We are going to block this nominee because we're hoping a Republican president will fill this position with someone who will vote the way we want him to vote."  Well, he's getting as close to that, and it's obvious to most people that that's what he means.

To Know The Son, Know the Dad - So What Can We Learn From Trump's Dad?

The biblical citation below with attributions to Matthew and to Luke.

"No one truly knows the Son except the Father, and no one truly knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Not quite what I had in mind, but the concept is there, even if it refers to one specific son and father.

But there are other similar beliefs scattered throughout our culture.

Attributed to Alexander Pope:

'Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined.’

The Free Dictionary tells us about:

'Like father, like son.'

Idiomeanings offers:  [At first I thought they were trying not be sexist by offering a mother/daughter example, but since it involved shopping, I think not.]

'The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.'

There are lots of sons who have distanced themselves from their dads and worked to be exactly the opposite of them.    Psychology Today has a long article tracing the changes since the industrial revolution that have changed the relationships between the father and the son.  Fathers today have fewer connections with their sons, resulting in what the author calls "Father Hunger."

Life for most boys and for many grown men then is a frustrating search for the lost father who has not yet offered protection, provision, nurturing, modeling, or, especially, anointment. All those tough guys who want to scare the world into seeing them as men and who fill up the jails; all those men who don't know how to be a man with a woman and who fill up the divorce courts; all those corporate raiders who want more in hopes that more will make them feel better; and all those masculopathic philanderers, contenders, and controllers--all of them are suffering from Father Hunger. They go through their adolescent rituals day after day for a lifetime, waiting for a father to anoint them and treat them as good enough to be considered a man.

I think the author generalizes a lot here, and he doesn't offer any hard evidence in this essay.  But my own sense is that the love of parents - often the father - is a yearning that many men have.  They want father's approval and blessings and not getting it as they need it often plays a big role in men's lives.  They never feel truly comfortable with themselves and act out in many inappropriate ways.

What does Trump's relationship with his father tell us about this idea?

Trump's grandparents came to the US in 1885 from Germany.  Fred Trump, the father,  was born October 11, 1905 and became a real estate developer in partnership with his mother at age 22, who helped finance the company.

In 1927, sometime before his business partnership with his mother, he was arrested at a KKK and Fascist demonstration where two people were killed.  The Washington Post wrote about this after Trump claimed ignorance about David Duke and white supremacist support for Trump.  [I checked out the NY Times June 1, 1927 article* they cite, and the story, with Fred Trump's name is there.  He would have been 21 years old at the time.]

By World War II, with the US going to war against the country where his parents were born, Fred stayed in the US building barracks for soldiers among other things.  He was 35 and all men between 18 and 45 were required to sign up for the draft.  The National World War II museum site says 50 million men had registered for the draft by the end of the war and 10 million had been drafted.  I'm sure it wouldn't have been hard to make the case that his work was important for the war.

He continued to get government contracts after the war and Woody Guthry lived in one of his buildings for a time.  He wrote a song about it:

"I suppose
Old Man Trump knows
Just how much
Racial Hate
he stirred up
In the bloodpot of human hearts
When he drawed
That color line
Here at his
Eighteen hundred family project"

Wikipedia adds Justice Department findings to the accusations.

In 1973, the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division filed a civil rights suit against the Trump organization charging that it refused to rent to black people. The Urban League had sent black and white testers to apply for apartments in Trump-owned complexes; the whites got the apartments, the blacks didn't. According to court records, four superintendents or rental agents reported that applications sent to the central office for acceptance or rejection were coded by race. A 1979 Village Voice article quoted a rental agent who said Trump instructed him not to rent to black people and to encourage existing black tenants to leave. In 1975, a consent decree described by the head of DOJ’s housing division as "one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated," required Trump to advertise vacancies in minority papers and list vacancies with the Urban League. The Justice Department subsequently complained that continuing "racially discriminatory conduct by Trump agents has occurred with such frequency that it has created a substantial impediment to the full enjoyment of equal opportunity."[12]

We do have to put this in context.  At the time, housing discrimination was common everywhere.  I remember hassling my realtor uncle about not selling to blacks and his response was that he'd be in trouble with the realtors association if he did.  To his credit, he later helped get anti-discrimination practices adopted.  [My google searches can't find this quickly.  It's what he told me and he didn't make things up.  But I'm putting it on my todo list to find out more details about when Los Angeles realtors adopted anti-discrimination policies and if I can find any references to his role.]

Nevertheless, there were people who were more and people who were less aggressive about this.  The Fred Trump  example appears pretty aggressive.  (Yes, I know, I tend to understate things.)

The Wikipedia piece also tells us that

The couple [Fred Trump and his wife]  had five children: Maryanne (born 1937), a federal appeals court judge; Frederick "Fred" Jr. (1938–81); Elizabeth (born 1942), an executive assistant at Chase Manhattan Bank; Donald (born 1946); and Robert (born 1948), president of his father's property management company. Fred, Jr. predeceased his father when he died of complications of alcoholism in 1981.

The daughters seemed to do ok.  The first son would seem to have had some serious problems if he died in his forties of alcoholism.   How hard was it for Donald to get his father's positive attention?  From my own family, I know that Germans believed that kids should not be praised, that it would go their heads.  Fortunately, my father didn't follow that philosophy.

Trump seemed to act up a lot as a kid.  From another Washington Post piece:

"Before military school, Trump was famous for breaking the rules. Long before buildings would be named after him, schoolmates used the Trump name as shorthand for getting into trouble. 

"We used to refer to our detention as a 'DT' — a 'Donny Trump' — because he got more of them than most other people in the class," said Paul Onish, one of Trump's grade school classmates.

Then came military academy.  This article compares his classmates' impressions with Trump's.  As you can imagine, Trump's version is that the others lied and he was a natural leader who got a great education, even knew more about the military than people who fought in wars.

My guess is that Trump was acting out because he wasn't getting his father's approval.  Living at boarding school and then military school away from the family at such an early age does let us know that he wasn't particularly close to his parents at that time.  

The Wikipedia quote just above mentions that the youngest Trump child took over the father's business.  What does it mean that Robert, two years younger than Trump, became president of his father's company?  Wikipedia explains some of it:

In 1968 his 22-year-old son Donald Trump joined his company Trump Management Co., becoming president in 1974, and renaming it The Trump Organization in 1980. In the mid-1970s he lent his son money, allowing him to go into the real estate business in Manhattan, while Fred stuck to Brooklyn and Queens. "It was good for me," Donald later commented. "You know, being the son of somebody, it could have been competition to me. This way, I got Manhattan all to myself."[2]

Maybe that's what happened and they parted on amiable terms.  Or maybe Trump was putting a positive spin on a difficult partnership.   He does say they avoided competing.


Does birth order matter?  The research I found in a quick google search was too contradictory to base any generalizations to fourth-child-of-five Trump.


I'm not sure what conclusions we can take from this.  I haven't read Trump's book, which should give some insights even it if is full of spin.  What I've found is not inconsistent with my belief that he's still seeking dad's approval by trying to be a rich winner in the same field as his dad.  I know, his dad is dead, but he lived long enough (until 1999)  to see some of Trump's financial triumphs (and failures.)  Nor do the data prove my hypothesis.  Did Fred ever praise Donald for his achievements?  I'd guess if he did, it wasn't effusive enough or it was just too late.  Or maybe they got along well, but Fred's behaviors weren't very good models for Donald to follow.  And there are lots of other possible interpretations.

[UPDATE March 14, 2016:  It appears to me, after reading the NYTimes article Kathy mentions in the comments, that the 'bad role model' explanation may be the closest.  The article says that the oldest son just wasn't ruthless enough and Donald, who thrived on the constant criticism and sparse praise, became the favorite son.  Dad didn't like wimps and Fred Jr.'s family was written out of Fred Sr's will.]

Please take this as bits and pieces of data that may or may not point accurately at Trump's motivation.

*Since I had to sign in through the UAA library to get the article, I'm not including the link which wouldn't work on here.  But for those of you who want to check, it's June 1, 1927, page 16.  In that same issues there are stories about the Soviets spying on the Chinese, Lindberg being feted in France, a British researchers findings that blue eyed blonds tend to commit the vast majority of crimes, and that  the Yankees won both games of their double header, with Babe Ruth hitting two home runs.


I note that I've broken down and added a Trump label to this blog.

[More feedburner problems.  I thought it might just been too much html code imported when I cut and pasted, so I'm being careful about that, but it doesn't seem to matter today.]

Could Trump Win The Presidency?

I recall a time when people couldn't imagine that Ronald Reagan could be nominated for President, let alone elected, so it seems reasonable to seriously look at the possibility of a Trump presidency.

There seems to be a series of questions here - a sort of decision tree.

1.  Is there a way to stop a Trump nomination?
2.  If he's nominated could he possibly win?
3.  If he won, what would things look like?
4.  If he lost, what would be the impact on the Republican Party and the US? (Not to mention the rest of the world.)

In this post I'm just going to play with the first two questions.  (Basically, I plan to just write this off the top of my head.  Then I'll probably google around to see what others have said and decide if I need to revise.)

1.  Is there a way to deny Trump the nomination?

I see several possible ways Trump might not be the Republican nominee.

A.  Anti-Trump candidates pool their delegates for one of their own.  Trump's only getting 30-40 percent of the Republican primary votes.  That means that 60-70 percent of Republicans are voting against him.  I'm not sure what the rules are these days, but in the past, delegates of candidates who drop out can switch to other candidates.  I'm not sure how many delegates each candidate has at this point and we don't know how many they'll have by the convention.  It's hard to imagine Cruz giving his votes to Rubio and vice versa.  But this whole primary has been hard to imagine.  This is a numbers problem and check with those blogs that tally delegate counts.  

B.  Trump's past or something he says or does will cost him his base or outrage enough people that he is forced to pull out.   One could say that he's tried everything possible already, so this is unlikely.  Sometimes i think that he's deliberately trying to destroy the Republican party by insulting everyone he can think of.  His followers seem to be excited by his style of saying fuck you to everyone who crosses him, not by his content.  I don't see how he can lose the faithful if he keeps up this style until he gets nominated.  Can he say or do something that would cause the Republican Party to ban him from the party?  I'm not sure.

C. He gets seriously ill or dies.

D.  The Republican establishment changes or manipulates the delegate procedures to thwart his nomination.  Probably the most likely way to stop him.  But Trump would probably run as an independent candidate.


2.  If he's nominated, can he win?

This presidential election calls to mind two elections that I've lived through:  Goldwater and Reagan. Of the two, this one seems much more like Goldwater.

Goldwater and Reagan

Goldwater was a US Senator, so he was more of an insider than Trump.  But he was seen as extreme in his own party.  And he was supported by the John Birch Society, somewhat similar to the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party.  A big difference is that Goldwater was a senator when senators referred to each other as "the honorable Senator from  . . ." and debated civilly and didn't publicly call each other names.

Reagan was an outsider, but he had been governor of California.  (His signature is on my UCLA diploma.)  He was supported by party establishment and followed their script closely, literally reading the teleprompter in his actor role as 'the candidate.'

Of the two, I'd say this year is more like 1964 when Goldwater ran against Lyndon B. Johnson and lost badly.

That said, many would argue that the old rules no longer apply.  I'd say that's true of the rules of thumb of political pundits, but not the underlying rules of how people behave and politics work.


Can Trump Get Elected?

Trump is getting 30-40% of Republicans.  As I've said repeatedly, that means 60-70% of Republicans oppose him.  Is there any way he could win the election if nominated?

1.  He could totally turn his back on the people who have been supporting him and present himself as a much more moderate candidate.  I'm not sure he could pull off such a change and whether it would be credible to most people.

2.  He could totally attack his opponent - Clinton, Sanders, or whatever surprise is ahead - as he's done with his Republican competitors in the primaries.  I suspect Clinton or Sanders will be ready and that for the majority of American voters, it will be reason to vote against Trump.

This all leads me to wonder whether he's just running to destroy the Republican party.  He keeps being more and more outrageous, maybe wondering if there is anything he can say or do to alienate his supporters.  It seems not.  Maybe if he pushes gun control.  Maybe this is all a show on his part to expose the hypocrisy of our political system.

Reagan won in part because the persona he presented was this firm, but loving father/grandfather figure who knew right from wrong and would take care of his family.  It's also reported that he won because his team secretly negotiated with the Iranians who had taken hostages in the US embassy and agreed to buy arms from them to sell to the Nicaraguans if they kept the hostages until after Reagan became president.  If that's true, and I'm inclined to believe it's more likely than not, it would amount to treason.  But the Reagan hero machine ignores such details.


My guess is that:

1.  Hillary Clinton will be able to credibly respond to Trump's attacks without lowering herself to his level.
2.  Trump's crude attacks will not go over well beyond his current supporters.
3.  Many Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump because they simply cannot vote for a Democrat, especially a  woman.
4.  Others will not vote for Trump, but may vote for other candidates.  Basically though, a Trump candidacy will depress Republican voters and will probably be a big turnout generator for Democrats.
5.  Clinton will win big, like Lyndon Johnson did in 1964.

I believe that Trump is the kind of guy who believes in the success of any project he takes on.  He's not doing this to destroy the Republicans, but to become president.  He feels himself qualified and he only sees the positive outcome of himself as the future president.  Just as his campaign so far has surprised everyone, he believes that will continue.

Clinton will lose votes because she's a woman.  But she'll also get votes because she's a woman.  A close relative argues, persuasively, that Clinton is the most qualified candidate in history.  She's got private sector experience as an attorney.  She's had a birds' eye view of the presidency for eight years.  She's been a US Senator.  She's run for president before.  She's been secretary of state.  She knows many of the world's leaders.  She's dealt with critics in the media and in Congress.  And she's head and shoulders more qualified than any of the Republicans.  But then a woman has to be twice as good to get to this point.

The difference in qualifications and style between the two candidates will be so overwhelming that sane Americans (and I think that's still a majority of the voters) will not have choice but to vote for Clinton or not vote at all.  The question will be whether those normally conservative leaning voters will just skip voting for president or whether they abandon the whole ballot.  I think a sizable number simply won't vote.  What they do will impact the Senate and possibly cut deeply into the Republican majority in the House.  And the governors elected this election will be the ones with influence in the 2020 redistricting.

Trump will do his best to pull Clinton down to his level as he's done with his opponents in the primaries.  Clinton's strategy will be to hit him hard with facts, but leave the name calling to Trump.  Surrogates will defend her.

Now, who has thoughts on the vice presidential candidates?

Initial Thoughts: New Hampshire

What does New Hampshire mean?  You can't ignore 60% of the vote.  

Here are a few thoughts:

1.  Can Sanders (ie a 74 year old, Jewish, self declared democratic socialist) win in November?
2.  If he did win, could he accomplish any of the things he's wants to do?
3.  Would Clinton have done better if she weren't a woman?
4.  What about Kasich?

1.  Can Sanders (ie a 74 year old, self declared democratic socialist, and a Jew) win in November?

Social reality, as opposed to physical reality, is what we decide it is.  Social reality changes over time.  Our understanding of physical reality changes.  Same sex marriage, for example, is now legal.   If enough people decide being a socialist isn't the kiss of death, then it isn't.   Republicans have been calling Obama a socialist all along and they'll do the same with Clinton.

Sanders' advantage is his self labeling.  He's not afraid of the label and he'll stand up and challenge people who use the word as a slur.  I suspect the next year Americans will get schooled in socialism and related concepts.

Can a Jew be elected?  If a black American can be elected, surely being Jewish won't be the factor that prevents someone from becoming president.

Reagan was the oldest person to be elected president in 1980 when he was 69.  You can send Sanders a 75th birthday card on September 8.  But times have changed.  Trump will be 70 on June 14,  and Clinton will be 69 on October 26.  I kind of like the idea of having a president who is older than I am again.

Can he win?  If he's running against Trump?  Only 35% of the Republican voters voted for Trump.  I'd bet that more Clinton voters would back Sanders than Trump voters would support another Republican.  

Republicans are probably smiling at Clinton's loss in New Hampshire.  They've been worrying about running against her.  They've set up all sorts of campaigns to block her - from Benghazi to Lewinsky.  Bernie Sanders would be an easy opponent as far as they're concerned.  But they dismissed Trump too.

2.  If he did win, could he accomplish any of the things he's promising done?

First, promising is not the right word.  He's promoting things like free community college and single payer health plan, but I don't think he's promising them.  Few American presidents can get all the programs they want.  Even one or two major accomplishments is a big deal these days.  

So, no, he's not going to get everything done.  But ideas take a while to germinate, grow, and bear fruit.  Electing a man who strongly champions new ideas, means those ideas will move from the 'pipe-dream' category to the possible, even probable category.  It will be out there and there will be more support.  And they're more likely to eventually take hold.

How much a President Sanders gets done will depend on how his candidacy would affect the congressional elections.  Can he pick up a bunch of Democratic senators?  Getting a majority in the House will be harder, but the size of the Republican majority can be shrunk.  Though gerrymandering after 2010 will slow things down.  While there are no district line drawing for the Senate (since every state gets two Senators), the existing state lines give red states a lot more clout than their population warrants.

3.  Would Clinton have done better if she weren't a woman?

I'm sure that there are people who either consciously or unconsciously react less positively to Clinton the candidate because she's a woman.  Maybe even five or ten percent.  Possibly more.  Women are judged differently than are men.

But I think that it's more about who this particular woman is.  She's supported the economic establishment over the years and the money people have supported her.  Despite her denials, it's hard to imagine that those ties won't impact her decisions.  Now, she could argue that her connections will make it easier to negotiate changes, but I suspect that her past positions including her husband's passing of NAFTA and her more recent support for PPT, make a lot of Democratic voters nervous.

One could just as well ask if she'd be the candidate if she weren't a woman.  Would she be running for president if she hadn't been first lady?  If she hadn't married Bill, would she have had her own political career and gotten to the point she's at?

My sense is that she's just a bit too wonky. She doesn't have the charisma that Bill has.  And charisma - a comfortableness with people, an ability to make others feel comfortable and to make them trust you - plays a big role in presidential elections.  

The heart makes the ultimate decision among candidates.

4.  What about Kasich?

For me, his second place finish among the Republicans was the big surprise.  Will he get some attention now that could move him up in future primaries?  Or will he be pulled back down in Southern states?   

Just some quick thoughts after the primary.  Interesting times.  

Why Sen. Giessel Was Wrong Not To Swear In Oil Company Witnesses In April 2014

[This leads up to an LA Times article on oil company deception about climate change. You can skip down to the bottom, but I'm trying to tie a number of things together.]

In April 2014 there was an Alaska Senate committee hearing on SB 21 - the bill that gave oil companies huge tax credits and is now aggravating the Alaska budget situation already hurt by falling oil prices.  Sen. Cathy Giessel was the chair.

Sen. Hollis French requested that witnesses be sworn in.  Giessel responded in part:

“We are to conduct ourselves with some decorum, and to spring that on people who are coming to testify would simply be unprofessional of us,” Giessel said. “I’m not an attorney, as the previous speaker is, but it is my understanding that the preparation for testimony under oath is a different type of preparation than simply coming and providing information.” [emphasis added]

My original post on this at the time has much more detail.  I did point out at the time that the oil companies were not "simply providing information" and linked to the extensive presentations they had prepared.

Giessel is one of the oil industry's strongest  supporters in the legislature.  Pat Forgey, in a 2013 article on the oil industry's influence in the legislature, wrote:

"Next, Senate Bill 21 went to the Senate Resources Committee, chaired by Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage. Giessel is married to Richard S. Giessel, who manages R&M Consulting's Construction Services business. The company touts its petroleum ties on the firm’s website, starting with construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline and continuing with recent work on various gas pipeline proposals.
Cathy Giessel's financial disclosure forms show Richard Giessel was paid between $200,000 and $500,000 last year."

Forgery's article looks at the lax conflict of interest rules that allow legislators with such clear conflicts to participate this way in the legislature.

Why shouldn't people testify under oath?  If the oil companies had nothing to hide, then they should have said, "Of course we'll testify under oath."

So, why all this history?  

Because in many ways, we've learned that the oil companies are either just wrong or flat out lying.  Here's a Fortune piece on BP that chronicles how their actual safety programs were far sketchier than their public pronouncements.  I looked at Shell's safety plans for the Chukchi back in 2013 and found them to have a lot less operational substance than one would expect.  And when the Kulluk had problems I reported on that, including this post which shows how empty of content their press reports were. 

And today, the LA Times tells us this once again in a story about how oil companies knew that climate change was real, but their advertisements denied the science was trustworthy.

“Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

One year earlier, though, engineers at Mobil Oil were concerned enough about climate change to design and build a collection of exploration and production facilities along the Nova Scotia coast that made structural allowances for rising temperatures and sea levels.

So, Alaskans, as we prepare to vote on all the members of our state house of representatives and a third of the senators in November 2016, let's get smart about the people we elect.

The oil companies are NOT our enemies, but they are more like business adversaries.  Businesses are supposed to compete, that's why the market is supposed to work.  Even when they cooperate they are always testing each other.  The Alaska Republican Party wants us to believe everything the oil industry says.  And when there is major oil related legislation, oil industry employees turn out en masse - in the middle of work days - to testify.  Of course, they want to look good to their bosses, they want to protect their jobs.  So do the legislators who get strong financial support from the oil industry.

The State is already at a disadvantage when dealing with the oil companies, because so much of our proprietary information is public information, while the oil companies won't share theirs.  If you already know all this, then help educate the doubters by helping to gather and package information that shows:

• the oil companies aren't our friends, they're adversaries - they want our resources at the lowest cost they can get
• oil companies are headquartered outside of Alaska and their top executives have no long term interest in Alaska's future good
• oil company contributions to Alaskan communities are calculated business expenses to gain public support and they are all tax deductible
• oil companies don't tell the truth all the time - sometimes they think they do, but they're wrong, and sometimes, like the LA Times piece shows, they flat out lie
• many legislators are beholden to big oil - some are oil company employees, others have business ties to them, and others just get important campaign donations from them, and they help them get our resources cheap
• which legislators are most compromised and which stand up for Alaskans and the future of Alaska

If any of this comes as news to you, do your duty as a citizen and get informed before you vote.