Attending A Concert As An Act Of Defiance

[I'd suggest you first start the video below so you have appropriate background music to the post.]

Obama,  when talking about Trump's election, reminded people that the sun would still come up tomorrow morning.  I want to remind everyone that the sun came up every morning over the killing fields of Cambodia.  It came up every day over the Bosnia-Herzogovenia massacres.  And it rose when people were hacking their neighbors to death in Rwanda.   The sun rising doesn't measure normalcy of human behavior.  And while I'm not anticipating mass murder, if Trump carries out any of his key campaign promises, millions of lives are going to be severely disrupted.  Suicide hotlines have lit up since the election, particularly among the already vulnerable LGBT community.  And if protesters are are labeled as traitors.   . . . As the Gessen Rules for Surviving Autocracy tell us, we can't accept slippage of our standards of democracy as the new normal.





Thursday night we went to musical event to support the protestors at Standing Rock.  There was a series of different bands who played short sets.   Lots of dancing and good music at Anchorage Community Works near Ship Creek.

But you don't have to go to something that is specifically a protest concert or a fund raiser.  Good artists are the most consistent speakers of truth in any society.  When you create art without using words, it's harder for authorities to detect the offense.  But authoritarian governments often shut down artists because they know they are among the least obedient members of society.

That's all the more reason to go see their work - to support them morally and financially.

Friday night we went to UAA to an Anchorage Festival of Music presentation of "The People United Will Never Be Defeated!" by Frederic Rzewski.  The UAA ticketing website describes it this way*:

A Tour de Force for Solo Piano
One of the most magnificent piano works of the 20th century, this 'tour de force' is a theme and variations of epic proportions. It is frequently compared to Beethoven's Diabelli Variations or J.S. Bach's Goldberg Variations. Taking his theme from a Chilean worker's song, American composer Frederic Rzewski crafts 36 variations exploring a variety of music styles from neo-romanticism to jazz and the avant-garde. Commissioned for the celebration of America's Bicentennial.
No matter what happens in the November elections, remember that The People United Will Never Be Defeated!"

(*since the concert's over this page may disappear soon.)


This work was more than appropriate for the beginning of the Trump era.  Cedille Records writes:

"This riveting, audience-pleasing tour-de-force is a nearly hour-long set of 36 variations on a popular Chilean protest song from the era of Augusto Pinochet’s repressive right-wing military dictatorship. AllMusic.com applauds it as a work “of bewildering and amazing variety, ranging from serialism to jazz to romanticism to the further reaches of the avant-garde and back” and culminating in 'a superbly emotional climax.'” [emphasis added]

Pianist Stephen Drury is a world class pianist. Again from the ticketing page,  

"The Anchorage Festival of Music joins forces with UAA to present Stephen Drury, one of only a handful of pianists who give live performances of this piece. According to the New York Times: 'Mr. Drury’s playing is extraordinary. He plays the entire program with technical command, keen ear for color, vivid imagination and probing intelligence.'”

Stephen Drury at UAA 

Drury gave a brief introduction about the structure of the piece, then sat down and started playing - no sheet music - for nearly an hour from genre to genre united by the familiar theme.



It was almost like magic that a man could sit at the piano, stretch out his arms and make such incredible sounds come out of the piano. There were moments when I though there must be a couple more people playing that piano with him because there was such an overwhelming wall of music.   And, of course, the UAA music recital hall is a gem of space to hear live music.  It's intimate and the acoustics are incredible.

So this post's recommendation for standing up against autocracy is to patronize the arts.  Go to museums, to galleries, to concerts, to theater.  Invite artists to play when you give a big party.  Give money if you can to support artists to keep their creativity and honesty alive.  Your support allows artists to work on truth.  Smart dictators coopt artists - paying them to compose the soundtracks for tyranny and to illustrate propaganda posters.  That's much cleaner than having to detain them or kill them.

So we need to support artists so they can survive financially making honest art.


Below is a Youtube  of The People United Will Never Be Defeated.  It is NOT from Friday night's concert, but it's to get you in the mood.  Youtube identifies this pianist as Yuji Takahashi.

Rules For Surviving Autocracy

Masha Gessen was born in Russia and moved with her family to the US when she was 15.  Later she went back and worked in Moscow.  She has dual US and Russian passports.  

 I first found out about a her when a friend lent me her book The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin.  She's knows how things work.  When she writes, we should pay attention.

I found out about this article by Gessen, Autocracy:  Rules for Survival  from the same friend. (Thank you.)  

The world has plenty of examples of countries sliding out of democracy.  I choose to take these rules very seriously.  Starting late Tuesday night, we stepped into an alternative universe.  We have some time of apparent normalcy, but it's going to be obvious soon that things are seriously wrong.  

Below is a greatly abbreviated version of her six rules.  

Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says. Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization. This will happen often: humans seem to have evolved to practice denial when confronted publicly with the unacceptable. Back in the 1930s, The New York Times assured its readers that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was all posture. .  .
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality. Consider the financial markets this week, which, having tanked overnight, rebounded following the Clinton and Obama speeches. Confronted with political volatility, the markets become suckers for calming rhetoric from authority figures. So do people. .  .
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy. . .
Rule #4: Be outraged. If you follow Rule #1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised. But in the face of the impulse to normalize, it is essential to maintain one’s capacity for shock. This will lead people to call you unreasonable and hysterical, and to accuse you of overreacting. It is no fun to be the only hysterical person in the room. Prepare yourself. . .
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises. Like Ted Cruz, who made the journey from calling Trump “utterly amoral” and a “pathological liar” to endorsing him in late September to praising his win as an “amazing victory for the American worker,” Republican politicians have fallen into line. Conservative pundits who broke ranks during the campaign will return to the fold. Democrats in Congress will begin to make the case for cooperation, for the sake of getting anything done—or at least, they will say, minimizing the damage. . . .
Rule #6: Remember the future. Nothing lasts forever. Donald Trump certainly will not, and Trumpism, to the extent that it is centered on Trump’s persona, will not either. Failure to imagine the future may have lost the Democrats this election. They offered no vision of the future to counterbalance Trump’s all-too-familiar white-populist vision of an imaginary past. . .

In a previous post I said I was going to try to include in each political post, something useable, something for people to do, so they gain some power in the fight we have looming ahead.  Today it is these rules.  They're tools for not letting yourself be misguided into ignoring all the signs.

I've read Rule 4 carefully.  I tend to remain calm and outrage isn't my style.  But all the rules Americans have come to assume were simply part of nature, no longer can be certain.  Without strong and vigorous opposition - overt and covert - the America we know is toast.

Gessen criticizes Obama and Clinton for being so gracious to Trump.  She rightfully tells us that he simply isn't going to be gracious back.  Being a total jerk (is there a word for jerk that suggests something more menacing?) won him the election.  Why would he stop now?  Even if he could.

Dismantling Democracy Starts With Restricting The Media

I said yesterday it felt like part of the USA had died.  It appears others have felt the same.  This piece by Neal Gabler at Moyers&Company starts out with that focus, but then goes on to look at the death of the American media.  

And as AP News pointed out today, excluding the media was one of Trump's first moves.

"President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday refused to let a group of journalists travel with him to cover his historic first meeting with President Barack Obama, breaking a long-standing practice intended to ensure the public has a watchful eye on the nation's leader.
Trump flew from New York to Washington on his private jet without that "pool" of reporters, photographers and television cameras that have traveled with presidents and presidents-elect.
Trump's flouting of press access was one of his first public decisions since his election Tuesday."

The media, when doing their job well, and a lot of the media did NOT do their jobs well during this campaign, are the bulwark of democracy.  They are the key to keeping government accountable.  And restricting the media is one of the first steps a dictator takes.

In 2007 I posted Naomi Wolf's Ten Steps For Dismantling Democracy. Now's a good time to review those steps.   I suggest putting them up on the refrigerator.

I looked up authoritarian fonts for this list.  I was directed to Fraktur - this one above is Breitkopf Fraktur.  I know, it's hard to read.  So here's another one that's easier, but a bit messy.  But I want the image to be as jarring as the message.  Or you can write out your own copy.  That helps cement these in your mind. While looking for a font, I also found a book I found called A True Authoritarian Type. 

Restricting the press (8) already began during the campaign, and was one of the first actions newly elected Trump has taken that we know of.  And Bush had already begun on this road and Obama has also contributed to it (4).


Yesterday I decided that all posts about American politics need to have a positive step that readers can take. Here are two.

___ Clipping the list and putting it on the refrigerator is one.
___ Check out Klein's website, her Wikipedia page, or The Economist's rejection of her ideas 

Remember There's No Mandate: Clinton got 59,755,284 votes, Trump Only Got 59,535,522*

Popular vote 2000 Bush = 50,456,002  Gore= 50,999,897

*The actual popular vote for 2016 will still change as absentee ballots continue to be counted, but it's important to remember when Trump supporters talk about a mandate, that the majority of the voters picked Clinton.

The world would be a spectacularly different place had Gore won - we'd have been much further along on the most important issue facing the world, climate change for one thing.  The same is true in this election.

Trump warned us that the election was rigged.  The electoral college is one of the ways that the election is rigged.  (But, let's be honest, if Clinton had won the electoral college, but not the popular vote, Democrats wouldn't be complaining.  Though I suspect the Trump supporters would be in the streets much more aggressively than Clinton supporters are.)

But there is something you can do about this.  There's a movement to make the electoral college irrelevant.  From the Daily Kos:

"Eliminating the Electoral College does not even require a constitutional amendment. An effort known as The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote. Once states totaling 270 electoral votes join the compact--which only requires passing state laws-- then the next presidential election will be determined the the popular vote, not the Electoral College.
As of November 9, 2016, ten states and the District of Columbia have signed the compact, totaling 165 electoral votes. So, we are already over 60% of the way there. If we can make this a national issue now, and if Democrats can do well at the state level in the 2018 midterm elections (which could happen under President Trump), then the winner of 2020 presidential election will be determined by popular vote."

But there are no simple solutions, as Trump and his supporters are soon to find out,  and as  Nate Silver pointed out in a Five Thirtyeight article in 2011.  He argues that the money follows the important votes and with the electoral college as the important vote, political money is focused on swing states.  If the electoral college no longer existed, that money would be spent trying to get the popular vote instead.  So, he suggests, Bush might have spent his money to win the popular vote instead of the swing states.

And let's remember that the states still are relatively autonomous.  According to the LA Times, Californians still believe in collectively making their state a better place to live:

"[California] Voters embraced $94 million per year for parks, $1.2 billion to house the city’s homeless, $3.3 billion for community college facilities and a stunning $120 billion to pay for subways, light rail lines and other transit projects over 40 years. Those measures, backers say, will help Los Angeles tackle two of its most intractable problems — traffic and homelessness — and potentially reshape the region."

Still In Denial - Keeping Election At A Distance

I had a meeting downtown today.  I knew there'd be no exercise time, so I decided to just walk the 3.5 miles.  I don't have studs on my bike tires and I wasn't sure how icy the trail would be.  I know the sidewalks aren't great, so walking would have to do.

Urban hiking is an idea we came up with when we were living in Hong Kong.  A three mile hike is no big thing in the woods on a trail, so why not do the same in the city?  In Hong Kong we could go explore new places that way and we could always get a bus or train back home if necessary.

Today I just took the bike trail downtown.  As I knew it would, an hour of walking through the woods would clear my head.

I even got to see a young moose eating grass at a playground.  The trail veers to the right and through a tunnel under C Street.








The meeting was fascinating in a troubling way and one day I hope to be able to post about this project.

It did feel like there had been a death in the family and I wanted to go by the cemetery downtown and hang out a bit with the departed.  But the meeting was on the other end of downtown and I was on foot.  Like with a death, I was trying to keep busy with my to do list and increase the distance from the initial shock before I deal with it.  Though in this case, the magnitude of the loss is going to grow and grow.

Trying to be positive, I was thinking that how I feel now is how many conservatives have felt since Obama was first elected.  I'd like to think that my feeling is more legitimate, but feelings are feelings. They may or may not be tied to a rational, realistic assessment.   But it's clear that progressives haven't really listened to the pain of the working class.  As I walked I thought about Trump's childhood.  From what I can tell, it was about always trying to please his father and avoid his wrath, avoid being a loser.  I suspect that a lot of families had similar dynamics and that Trump has that in common with many people who come from families with a strict and mercurial father.  He understood that pain and his audiences caught that.  And his own mercurial behavior - sometimes glowing and kind, as with his first speech as president elect, and other times nasty and insulting and bullying - is something they recognize from their own fathers.  What many of us saw as outrageous and unacceptable behavior, many others recognized as very familiar.

People know when they aren't being respected and I think liberal rejection of frustrated white working class was part of their resentment against Clinton.  Every other group is given a context - discrimination, poverty - with which to excuse unacceptable behavior.  But poor whites are called hillbillies or trailer trash or poor white trash when equivalent ethnic slurs are not allowed.  This is why in this blog I try not to use any kinds of slurs, try to respectful of the people I write about or who comment.  We need to talk and come together.  This is probably a good time for liberals to talk to Trump supporters, because now they are happy and feel like they matter.

Good night.  Don't let this fool you into thinking that things aren't going to get lots worse before they get better.  That I don't expect the mean and brutish Trump to be back soon.  He's 70.  He's not going to change.  As soon as someone crosses him, we'll see the nasty Trump back.

John Foelster's Research Into Alaska's AV-OS Voting Machines And How To Hack Them

As the early election results came in, I put the presidential race into a box and put it outside, turned off the radio, and did other things.  I wasn't ready to address what was happening.  I'm still not.

This post is something of a guest post.  I posted about John Foelster in 2014.  He alerted me several weeks ago that he was close to completing his website with all his evidence.  I wrote this last night but decided to wait until I'd slept before posting it.  I'm still not ready to address much and I have an afternoon appointment on something totally different today.  John's also posted this on Daily Kos.

My one bright bit of news this morning is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  Imagine Trump's supporters if he had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.



I've never met John Foelster, but we have exchanged emails.  This 2014 post gives my thoughts about John and why I posted about his work then.  I got some education in computer voting hacking while covering the Anchorage Municipal election fiasco in 2012.  The posts on that election are listed in the 2014 post linked above.

I posted Foelster's stuff in 2014 and I'm posting his recent stuff for several reasons:
1.  While I don't totally understand all that he's saying, I'm convinced that he's done his homework on the technical side.  He's found everything that's to be found online about the machines we use in Alaska and how we handled them.
2.  He doesn't have an agenda other than righting what he perceives as a wrong.
3.  The work he's done should be seen by those who can review it technically and determine its value.  And if there are others looking at this topic, they may find John's work useful. Or can point out his errors.

I have less confidence in Foelster's ability to fill in the gaps that are left by what is NOT available online.  It's reasonable that he try to explain how this could have been done.  But I wish he'd talked to people to find out if his suppositions about how this was carried out have merit.

My thoughts on all this, including a list of my posts about the 2012 Municipal election fiasco are on the 2014 post I devoted to Foelster's work then.

I've looked at his private website.  It's massive.  There is lots and lots of information.  His statement is like a two second look through a hole in the fence around his work.  I couldn't get through it all.  Whether it is fact or fiction, it is, in its own way, a work of art.   While John may not have tied all the loose ends, and may have tied some of them incorrectly, he is not a crazy conspiracy nut.  He's done way too much detailed study and analysis to not be taken seriously.  If his work is full of holes, exposure to the world will demonstrate that.  If it is worthwhile, not putting it up would be wrong.  I'm willing to put it up here since all this is related to Alaska elections.

Here's what John Foelster has to say.


[I've cut this out based on a request from the author - see comments below.]

2 Incumbent Republicans Fall In Close Alaska State House Races

I put up the most recent tally, but checked for a later one before posting.  And it was there.  So you can see 23:32pm results, and then the 00:21am results.

Cathy Muñoz lost in Juneau, Liz Vasquez in Anchorage.


Anchorage

Senate District N  with 64% of the precincts reporting
Beltrami, Vince  (NA)          5699  49.58%
Giessel, Catherine A (REP)  5738 49.92%  (Incumbent)
Write-in Votes   58    0.50%

Incumbent has 39 vote lead.

With 100% reporting
Beltrami, Vince  (NA)          8040  48.02%
Giessel, Catherine A (REP)  8615  51.46%  (Incumbent)
Write-in Votes   87    0.52%

Incumbent by 575

HOUSE DISTRICT 22 with 71% of the precincts reporting

Darden, Dustin T.  (AI)  502   9.78%  
Vazquez, Liz  (REP)  2236  43.55%  (Incumbent)
Grenn, Jason S.  (NA)   2385 46.46%

Challenger has a 149 vote lead

With 100%
Darden, Dustin T.  (AI)  654   9.29%  
Vazquez, Liz  (REP)  3075  43.67%  (Incumbent)
Grenn, Jason S.  (NA)   3298 46.84%   Winner

Challenger by 224 votes

HOUSE DISTRICT 25  with  57.1 % precincts reporting

Higgins, Pat  (DEM)    2408  49.95%
Millett, Charisse E. (REP)  2389 49.55%  (Incumbent)

Challenger has 19 point lead

100% reporting
Higgins, Pat  (DEM)    3297  49.45%
Millett, Charisse E. (REP)  3342 50.12%  (Incumbent)

Incumbent by 46 votes.



HOUSE DISTRICT 27 with 75% of precincts reporting

Pruitt, Lance  (REP)          2685   50.93%   (Incumbent)
Crawford, Harry T. J (DEM)  2569 48.73%

Incumbent has a 117 vote lead.

Pruitt, Lance  (REP)          3737   50.60%   (Incumbent)
Crawford, Harry T. J (DEM)  3616 48.96%

Incumbent by 141


Juneau

HOUSE DISTRICT 34  with 100% of precincts reporting

Muñoz, Cathy  (REP)   3730  48.54%  (Incumbent)
Parish, Justin   (DEM)  3914  50.93%

Challenger wins by 184 votes

How Will the 2016 Election Affect Black Representation In Congress?

Overview:  There are currently 2 black US Senators and 46 black Members of Congress.  At this point it looks certain there will be one less black representative as Charles Rangel's replacement is likely to be Dominican Adriano Espaillat.  (I've not seen him identified as black.)  Where other black representatives are not running in the general election, their successors appear likely to be African-American.  One iffy black incumbent is Texas district 23 Republican William Hurd.
Kamala Harris is likely to be the third African-American in the US Senate (also she'll be the first Indian-American Senator.) That would be the most black Senators in the Senate at once. Robert 'Bobby' Scott of Virginia is hoping to be appointed to the Senate if Tim Kaine becomes Vice President.  If that happens he'd be the fourth African-American US Senator in the next Congress.  But then his House seat will be open.
[*UPDATE Nov 9, 2016 - I've found two more new African-American candidates for Congress and they have both won:  Florida District 10 - Val Demings;  Delaware at-large - Lisa Blunt Rochester.]

Background on this post:  I updated my list of black members of Congress after the 2014 election.  You can see it here.  [There were two corrections necessary after I worked on this post.  I had totally missed one new black member elected in a 75% white district in New Jersey - Barbara Watson Coleman.  I'd also misspelled Marc Veassel in Texas district 33.]

I figured I should get ready for this election to see what changes there might be after this election.  Are there other black candidates running in other districts?  This is always a bit tricky.  As noted above, in 2014 I missed Barbara Watson Coleman, though I did manage to find a few other new ones who were not in mostly black districts.  This year I was only able, so far, to come up with one African-American candidate not from a seat already held by an African-American:   Kamala Harris is running for US Senate from California.   But what about others?  If you know of any I missed, please let me know.  My email is in the right column above the blog archive.

[Note on racial identity:  I'd note that these posts give me some discomfort because of the emphasis on race.  This is a socially constructed idea that sometimes becomes tricky.  Often identifying a person's race is arbitrary.   I try to utilize the identifiers the candidates themselves use, or look for other indicators that someone has self identified as African-American or black.  For instance,  Wikipedia tells us about Kamala Harris

"Harris is the first female,[4] the first African-American,[5][6][7][8][9] and the first Indian-American attorney general in California.[10][11]"

But for the Democratic candidate in Harlem who is expected to replace Charles Rangel, I can only find reference to him being 'Dominican' and 'Latino.'

For political reasons, it is still relevant to have these categories, and groups like the Congressional Black Caucus are significant.  But it is also instructive to look at women in Congress, Hispanics/Latinos, and other ethnicities.  I'll leave those to others to do.  My posts on this subject came about in 2008 when I could not find a clear list of black members of Congress and ended up creating one.  That left me with the task of updating the list every election.]

There are some changes we know about already:

New York 

Charles Rangel is NOT running for reelection in New York's 13th district.
The Democrat running to replace him is Adriano Espaillat, who would be, if elected, according to Wikipedia, the first Dominican Member of Congress.  There's a  Republican candidate, Tony Smith, and a Green and a Transparent Government Party candidate.

Florida 

Rep. Corrine Brown from Florida's 5th district lost the Democratic primary to state senator Al Lawson after  a 24 count federal indictment.  This means the loss of one woman member of Congress, but a Lawson win would maintain this as a black seat.

Maryland 

Rep. Donna Edwards from Maryland's 4th district ran unsuccessfully for the US Senate seat vacated by Barbara Mikulski.  That means one less woman in the Senate (Mikulski) and one less woman in the House (Edwards).
Anthony Brown is the Democratic candidate hoping to take Edwards' House seat.  His bio says he was the first African-American student body president in his high school.


Pennsylvania

District 2  Chaka Fattah was convicted on 22 counts of corruption in July 2016 and resigned from Congress.  He had already lost in the April primary to Dwight Evans (also African-American.)


California

Democrat Kamala Harris is the front runner in the race for US Senate.  Her father, a university professor, was from Jamaica and her mother was a medical doctor from India.  Politico touts this race (under California's relatively new all candidate primaries where the top two run in the general regardless of party) as historic.  Kamala Harris' opponent is Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

"The election of either would be a historic first: Harris would be the first biracial woman and first Indian-American woman in the U.S. Senate; Sanchez would be the first Latina."

I guess since there has already been an African-American woman in the Senate, that aspect wasn't mentioned.


Virginia

Robert Scott from Virginia's 3rd district is hoping to be appointed US Senator if Virginia's current Senator Tim Kaine is elected Vice President of the US.


Below is from my list of black Members of Congress from 2014.  Most are from pretty safe districts. I've commented on some of the races and others just have links, mostly to Ballotpedia, which, since 2014, seems to have garnered all the top spots on Google for people looking up congressional elections.


Alabama

 District 7 Rep. Terri Sewell is the only candidate in November.

District 13 Rep.  Barbara Lee   got 90% in the primary (in California now all parties are on one primary ballot and the top two go to the primary.)

California

Rep. Karen Bass in California's 37th district got 80% in the primary and will run against the Democratic runner up Chris Wiggins.

Rep. Maxine Waters in Calfornia's 43rd district got 73% of the vote in the primary against her Republican opponent.

Deleware

[UPDATE Nov 9, 2016:  District-at-Large Lisa Bluint Rochester* won]

Florida

District 5  Al Lawson

[UPDATE Nov 9, 2016:  District 10 Val Demings (D)* won this seat with 65% of the vote.]

District 20 Alcee Hastings

District 24, Frederica Wilson is running unopposed.


District of Columbia

Eleanor Holmes Norton


Georgia

District 2 Sanford Bishop

District 4 Hank Johnson

District 5 John Lewis

District 13 David Scott running unopposed.

All the Georgia races at one link.


Illinois

District 1 Bobby Rush won the Democratic primary with 73% of the vote and over 100,000 more votes than his Republican opponent got in his primary.

District 2 Robin Kelly also got over 70% in primary.

District 7 Danny Davis is running against long shot Republican Jeffrey Leef whose unusual road to the ballot got Tribune coverage.


Indiana

District 7 Andre Carson got more than twice the votes in his primary than his Republican opponent got in hers.


Louisiana

District 2 Cedric Richmond is running against three other Democrats and a Libertarian.  (Louisiana  will have a runoff in December if no one gets 50% or more.)


Maryland

District 4 - see above discussion of Donna Edwards running (and losing) in the Democratic primary for US Senate.

District 7 Elija Cummings got 13 times as many votes in the Democratic primary than his opponent got in the Republican primary.


Michigan

District 13 John Conyers

District 14 - after redistricting there were two Democratic Members of Congress in this district. African-American/Bangladeshi Hansen Clarke was pitted against white Gary Peters in 2012.  Peters won.  In 2014, Peters ran successfully for the US Senate and was replaced in the House by African-American Brenda Lawrence who defeated Clarke in the 2014 Democratic primary.


Minnesota

District 5 Keith Ellison -


Missouri

District 1  Wm. Lacy Clay

District 5 Emanuel Cleaver II


Mississippi

District 2 Bernie Thompson


New Jersey

District 10 Donald Payne   It appears there were no opponents in the primaries. 5% of the district is Republican.

District 12 Bonnie Watson Coleman was the first African-American to win this district in 2014.  This district is 75% white, but leans Democratic.


Nevada

District 4 Black Rep. Steven Horsford lost his 2014 reelection bid to the Republican Cresent Hardy.  The Democratic candidate this year, Ruben Kihuen was born in Mexico and faces Hardy.


New York

District 5 Gregory Meeks

District 8 Hakeem Jeffries  Appears unopposed in primary, no Republican candidates, one Conservative.

District 9 Yvette Clarke

District 13 Charles Rangel - retiring - discussed above.


North Carolina

The two black districts in North Carolina (1 and 12) were subject to gerrymandering and ordered to be redrawn.

District 1 G.K. Butterfield - 

District 12  Alma Adams (who was first elected in a special election in 2014 to replace Rep. Melvin Watts who was appointed Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.)


Ohio

District 3 Joyce Beatty

District 11 Marcia Fudge


Pennsylvania

District 2  Chaka Fattah was convicted on 22 counts of corruption in July 2016 and resigned from Congress.  He had already lost in the April primary to Dwight Evans (also African-American)


South Carolina

District 6  James Clyburn


Texas

District 9  Al Green

District 18  Sheila Jackson Lee

District 23  William Hurd's (R) Democratic opponent Pete Gallego got more votes in his primary than Hurd got in the Republican primary. Gallego won this seat in 2012 but was defeated by Hurd in 2014.  This race is rated as a tossup, though the district is 55% Hispanic and  Wikipedia says:

"In the Texas House, Gallego served on the board of directors of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), and four terms as Chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), a caucus of Texas representatives who are of Mexican-American descent or who serve a significant Mexican-American constituency."

District 30  Eddie Bernice Johnson

District 33  Marc Veasey


Utah 

District 4 Mia Love (R)  The district is 84% white, 2% black, 15% Hispanic.  Love is the first Haitian American Member of Congress and the first black Republican woman in Congress.


Virginia

District 3  Bobby Scott  - see note above about him hoping to be appointed to US Senate if Kaine becomes vice president.


Virgin Islands

Long-time Virgin Islands delegate to Congress Donna Christensen ran unsuccessfully for governor of the Virgin Islands in 2014.  Stacy Plaskett was elected to replace Christiansen as the Virgin Island's delegate to Congress in 2014.


Wisconsin

District 4  Gwen Moore

What A Trump Presidency Would Look Like

I suspect a Trump presidency would be worse than many imagine, and not as bad as some imagine.  After Bush v Gore I proposed that there be a cable channel that followed what happened with the actual winner and a channel that created a world in which the other won.  I'd really like the Trump supporters to see what a Trump-led US would really look like.  But neither candidate will actually be able to do much until members of Congress start breaking bread with members across the aisle again.

But here's a bit of prognostication based on what we do know about Trump.

Preface:  I’ve done a several posts about Donald Trump and what makes him tick.  There’s a post about his father and grandfather. There’s the post about his mentor, Roy Cohn.  And we’ve all seen his behavior on the campaign trail.  Using that history, I think we can predict how he will behave as president.  We can’t predict specific actions, but I think we can predict the kinds of actions he’s likely to take.  What he actually does will depend on events, on other people, and on Trump’s ability to figure out how to make the US government apparatus work.

So, let’s start with his world view that underlies why he does what he does.  (A lot can be seen in his relationship with his father and with his brother who did not live up to his father’s ideal and thus was Donald’s first and closest example of a loser.  See the post on his father.)

Then we’ll look at the sorts of behaviors this world view leads to.

Finally, I’ll give some examples of those behaviors once Trump gains the White House.  


Trump’s World View:

• Power is everything.
• Life is a long poker session and while you're going to lose a few games, at the end of the night you want to go home a winner.   Poker is about bluffing.  Poker-face means being able to lie without people reading your thoughts.  Honesty is a handicap in poker.  You can call people all sorts of vile names during the game yet go home as friends.
• The worst thing you can be is a loser.  Losers are contemptible.  Not being a loser is one of Trump’s key motivations to have power.  To do or say whatever to have power.  And he trashes his opponents. And when he doesn’t have power, he at least has to look like he does.   (Would those missing tax returns show us he isn't as wealthy as he claims?)
• With power he can do whatever he likes with impunity.  Rules don’t matter if you have power.  Reward and punishment are the basic tools.  
• You do favors for people who can help you.  You try to stay nice as long as they have something you need - prestige, support for your projects, fulfillment of your lusts.  You can take what you want from the less powerful and they don’t have the power to do anything about it.  You can take the women you want.  You can stiff contractors because  taking you to court will cost them more than walking away. You can pay off the rule makers, such as politicians,  to bend the law to your will.  
• But if they don’t cooperate, you punish them.  
• You hire lawyers to fix what you’ve broken.  Lawyers, don’t simply defend you, they are also attack dogs to destroy those who cross you.

Trump’s behavior based on his need to be the most powerful.

The need to appear powerful means:

• Honesty is a handicap.  He says whatever makes him look good.  He denies all allegations of  wrong doing.   He lies about opponents.   The only truth is Trump power.  Facts that don't support him are lies.
• The center of attention is the best place to be.
• Promoting his private interests and fulfilling his needs are the basic goals.
• Putting the Trump name on everything he owns and even things he doesn’t own.
• Attack, counterattack, never apologize. (See post on Roy Cohn.)

Trump as President

Applying  his world view and the behaviors they lead to, we can anticipate the kinds of things he's likely to do as president.

Center of attention - Winning the presidency will assure this goal for as long as he holds the presidency - which could be briefly for any number of reasons, or, if he has his way, could be for his lifetime.

He’ll want to be seen with the world’s most powerful leaders.  Putin may well be the first one to be feted at the White House.  Watch for opulent displays of power and wealth with the rich and famous and powerful leaders of the world.

We can be sure his new Washington DC hotel will be the center of inaugural events as much if not more than the White House itself.   And we can assume that he will totally remodel the White House. Maybe a White Trump Tower?

The Trump name:  Look for the Trump name to appear on the White House and Air Force One.  If he can figure out a way to change  the name of the country to Trump’s United States of America, he will.  Maybe it will be on all passports.  On money.  On all signs for government buildings and national parks. How about Trump’s United States Marines?

Promoting his private interests, particularly his wealth:

Look for changes in the law that help Trump, starting with income taxes and deregulation.  He would find it useful to delete all the records of federal agencies that have records about him.  Again the IRS comes to mind and the court system.

He’ll want to make government properties available to his real estate empire.  Or make arrangements that benefit him for other businesspeople to take over government property.  He'll be privatizing agencies and land.  He might want to make National Parks into Trump resorts.  As with his campaign, he'll have the government contract with various Trump businesses.  When challenged on this, he'll say he's saving the country money and attack the challengers.  


Attack, Counterattack, Never Apologize

Nixon had an enemies list.  It will look tame compared to Trump's list.  It will have anyone who has blocked his path toward something he wanted,  anyone who mentioned his small hands or didn't do his bidding fast enough.   Top on the list are the media who can expose his lies and constantly make his life miserable.  He’s already promised to change the libel laws.  He’ll change whatever laws he can to stop the media from saying bad things about him.

Those who block his policies will suffer merciless attacks in all the ways we’ve seen on the campaign, plus whatever levers of government power he gets access to.  Republicans (Paul Ryan is toast) and Democrats who stand up to him will be subject to withering attacks, both visible and behind the scenes.  Comey will become the new J. Edgar Hoover, using the FBI as Trump’s private mafia.  If Comey doesn’t cooperate, there will be a new FBI chief quickly.

The first foreign leaders - including terrorist leaders - to belittle Trump, will see massive retaliation.  If they are white, western nations, there will be vitriol and threats of economic sanctions.  If they are part of the rest of the world, don’t be surprised to see Trump USA Air Force jets unleashed on them.


Surprises that shouldn’t be surprises

Given that Trump sees life as a game of negotiations, lots of what he's promised on the campaign is just bluffing.  Not everything will go as many expect.

The Clinton's - Since Trump’s world is a series of poker games, once he wins, the election will be over.  All the anti -Clinton talk was bluster to win the election.  All he's charged her with, he'd do himself.  It was just competitive trash talking.  If he can find the Clintons and their foundation and allies useful, he could be gracious to them and find ways to use them to increase his own power.

The Wall - I’m guessing there will be a symbolic move to start a wall along the Mexican border, but it might eventually evolve into a border-walk of casinos and hotels and a revised border patrol mission to help businesses get cheap labor and make deals with wealthy foreigners who can help the Trump mission.

Trump Supporters - They’ll continue to be fed Trump’s racist, sexist, nationalist, anti-semitic rhetoric, but other than that, their lives won’t be better.  He was nice to them while he needed them.  To the extent that he will need them for his next terms, he’ll feed them the lies they love.  He'll rant to them about those blocking his reforms.   But he has no real interest in them other than what they can do for him and he has no idea of how to actually improve their lives.  Trump’s tax plans will cripple   the economy and the hollowness of making America great again will become obvious.  Except for the very, very rich.  But even they will be vulnerable to a failing economy.


I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  These are the things that Trump would like to do if he could.  But I imagine he'll find the combined resistance of the Clinton supporters and the establishment Republicans he's displaced, of the bureaucracy which is intended to slow down despots, of the courts, and of women and  people of color will be overwhelming.   And don't forget the rest of the world.  Even his supporters will eventually figure out they've been had.

Preferably, Clinton will win and the Trump presidency can be the basis of cable television series.

We Can't Save Your Planet And Other Signs Of LA

Perhaps the most ominous sign I saw in LA was this one:

More encouraging was this one by the rack of Santa Monica community bicycles.  It's a little steeper price than in Paris.  I need to read more details.  I don't think there are as many bike racks either, but then Santa Monica doesn't have near the population density that Paris has.

And the new bus route that Santa Monica added to get people to the new Metro station has a bus stop very close to my mom's place.  We tend to take the bus to and from the airport, but that leaves us with a mile walk.  In fact there was no bus less than a mile away.  This new route connects us to the one to the airport with just a short walk.

And when we got to the airport shuttle, there was this giant billboard across the street.  Cynical me wanted to check to see if this billboard was pure Doublespeak or was reasonably close to what the proposition does.

Ballotpedia says:

"A "yes" vote supports regulating drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay no more than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pays for prescription drugs.
A "no" vote opposes this measure to require state agencies to pay no more than the VA pays for prescription drugs."

It also says the Prop 61 campaign is likely to be the most expensive in US  on record with the drug companies spending $109 million so far to defeat it.

"The top ten donors to No on 61 are all pharmaceutical companies or companies with interests in the pharmaceutical drug industry. Over 99 percent of contributions to Californians for Lower Drug Prices came from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Polls indicate that support for Proposition 61 to be around 57 percent."

So folks, since the aliens can't save our planet, I guess we need to do it ourselves.