Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

OCTOBER 20,  2016

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:02 P.M. ET: 

IDIOT – FROM REUTERS:   BEIJING (Reuters) - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced his "separation" from the United States on Thursday, declaring he had realigned with China as the two agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.  Duterte made his comments in Beijing, where he is visiting with at least 200 business people to pave the way for what he calls a new commercial alliance as relations with longtime ally Washington deteriorate.  "In this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States," Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people, to applause, at a forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli.   "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost."  Duterte may be a borderline idiot, but his perception of America's decline is widely shared.  It should worry us, but a good part of the liberal press is indifferent, or perhaps has the view that American influence is evil.

TRUMP MAY HAVE A POINT – FROM ROLL CALL:   More than two out of every three U.S. citizens in a recent poll say they are very or somewhat concerned about the security of the nation's electoral system.  The Economist/YouGov poll was conducted amid Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s recent claims that the November election is “rigged.”  Seventy-two percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat concerned about the security of the electoral system while just 21 percent were either not very concerned or not concerned at all.  The survey found that two out of five respondents (42 percent) said they believed that Russia was attempting to influence the U.S. presidential election.  Last week, the White House officially accused Russia of meddling in U.S. elections. Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied any hand in the recent cyberattacks on Democratic groups and voter registration systems.  I think Trump's language is what hurt him.  To say the election is "rigged" is over the top.  If he'd said there are legitimate concerns about the accuracy of the vote, he'd have been right.  There always have been.  It's a legitimate issue.  You gotta say it right.

ME? – FROM BREITBART – President Barack Obama offers multiple excuses for why health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket, including blaming Republicans and insurance companies for the problems.
He complains that too many reporters spend more time discussing premium increases than explaining why he isn’t responsible for them.  “No, I had nothing to do with that,” Obama said, calling it “complicated” despite the “hysteria” that was growing.  Compare please to Kennedy's reply when asked who was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba:  "I am the responsible officer of the government."  We've come a long way down.

October 20, 2016       Permalink

THERE ARE OTHER ELECTIONS COMING – AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  There are European elections coming up that will have a serious impact on the European continent, and how we engage with the emerging Europe.  From Bloomberg: 

As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.’s Brexit referendum, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the coming 12 months, four of Europe’s five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France’s National Front, Italy’s Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance. “The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people,” says Evert Davelaar, a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don’t share “Western and Christian values.”

Even Europe’s most powerful politician, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is under assault. The anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has drained support from Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrats in recent state and local elections, capitalizing on discontent over Germany’s refugee crisis. In Austria the far-right Freedom Party has a shot at winning the presidency in balloting set for Dec. 4, after an election in May that the Freedom Party narrowly lost was annulled because of irregularities in vote counting. The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands want to follow Britain’s lead and quit the European Union. “Political risk in Europe is now far more significant than in the United States,” says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.

There’s a second test of populist muscle on Dec. 4, when Italy holds a referendum on constitutional changes proposed by the government of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Five Star is the leading opposition to the government’s plan to cut the number of seats in Parliament’s upper chamber and limit its powers, a move Mr Renzi is seeking to speed action on economic reforms. With the prime minister threatening to resign in the event of a “no” vote, growth-enhancing measures such as a corporate tax cut and help for Italy’s fragile banking system could be off the table. “You might end up having a political crisis on top of an economic slowdown and a banking mess,” says Bloomberg Intelligence economist Maxime Sbaihi. “Suddenly, stars could align for the worst.”

COMMENT:  Much of this is happening because arrogant elites in Europe show the same contempt for the people as they do in the United States.  Europe has actually been very generous in its immigration policies, but there's a difference between generosity and suicide. 

At the same time, some of leanings of the rising "populist" groups can be chilling, and reminders of the darker phases of Europe past.  We are in for a tough ride, with American leadership waning under the non-wisdom of Barack Obama.

October 20, 2016       Permalink

IS THIS AN OUTLIER? – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  We refer to the IBD/TIPP poll, which had the best record of accuracy in the 2012 presidential race.  From IBD: 

Donald Trump held onto his 1-point lead over Hillary Clinton in the second day of the IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll — 41% to 40%. Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Part's Jill Stein remain far behind at 7% and 5%, respectively.

In a two-way matchup, Clinton continues to hold a three-point lead over Trump — 43% to 41%. The poll included 779 likely voters, giving it a margin of error of +/- 3.6 percentage points.

The second day's results of the IBD/TIPP poll don't reflect any impact of the spirited presidential debate Wednesday night, which covered a wide range of issues, from the Supreme Court, to abortion, to ISIS, to economic policy and entitlement reform.

During the debate, Clinton repeatedly struggled to defend her policy positions and the Clinton Foundation scandal against sharp questioning from moderator Chris Wallace. When asked, for example, about conflicts of interest involving the foundation while she was Secretary of State, Clinton tried to turn the focus on what she described were the strengths of the nonprofit.

Rasmussen also defies the predictions of most of the polls:

It’s too early to measure the impact of last night’s final presidential debate, but Republican Donald Trump now has a three-point lead nationally on Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey finds Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 40%. Six percent (6%) still prefer Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, and three percent (3%) favor Green Party nominee Jill Stein. Another three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

COMMENT:  Ditto the Los Angeles Times poll, which has consistently put Trump ahead.  Are these simply outliers, the polls that we'll look to in the future as having been terribly wrong, or are they finding things the others aren't?  We won't know until the election is over, but the cold fact remains that the RealClearPolitics average of polls puts Clinton 6.4 points ahead. 

I have no educated guesses here.  I have only a hunch that the race will tighten toward the end unless Trump totally self-destructs, which is a possibility.  On the other hand, Clinton can have a medical crisis, another possibility.  All speculation at this point.

October 20, 2016       Permalink 

AFTERMATH – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  Most post-debate polls give the victory to Clinton, but most observers also feel, and I agree, that the needle probably didn't move much. 

Third debates rarely have much impact in presidential races.  Most voters have already decided, people are tired of politics, and rarely does anything important happen during the debate.  The exception, of course, was the great election of 1980, when Ronald Reagan used the third debate to safely put away incumbent small-timer Jimmy Carter.

Nothing has changed in our overnight observation that Trump's unforced error – refusing to say clearly that he'd accept the election results – would be the major headline.  It should not be, as it's meaningless rhetoric.  It's not, after all, the candidates who decide whether the results are valid.  But the press is unashamedly pro-Clinton, and that foolish comment was picked out as the most useful to further the desired outcome of the election.

We'll see by early next week if the major polls show any change from before the debate.  By that time we'll have only two weeks to go before the election.  If the present trend continues – or at least what we're told is the trend – we'll be looking at President Hillary Clinton, who will enter office as the most distrusted new president in modern history.  Congratulations.

October 20,  2016     Permalink

OCTOBER 19,  2016

11:55 P.M. ET:  The first debate poll is out from CNN.  It has Clinton winning, 52-39.  But we should point out that CNN's polls always have Clinton winning debates, so I don't attach too much significance to them.  Besides, 52% isn't much of a number for someone who, presumably, is the leading presidential candidate.

The big story is still Trump's blunder.  Most news organizations we've checked are leading their coverage with that:  Trump's announcement that he might not accept the result of the election. 

In 1976, incumbent President Gerald R. Ford committed a similar blunder in a debate with Jimmy Carter.  Ford said that Poland was a free nation.  Of course, it wasn't.  The blunder cost Ford dearly.  It made him seem uninformed, and it infuriated families that had escaped Eastern Europe.  Carter, much to our regret, went on to victory.

The conventional wisdom that I'm hearing tonight is that Trump's blunder destroyed an otherwise good performance.  We'll see.  The public has a way of surprising us.   

11:08 P.M. ET:  A number of first impressions are in from the debate.  There's a general (not unanimous) feeling that Trump had a good night on most issues, but that, once again, he committed serious unforced errors that compromised his performance.  The big headline is his statement that he might not accept the results of the election.  Whaa..?  That's the kind of statement you only make after the election if there's clear proof of fraud, and fraud sufficient to affect the outcome.  Even some Trump supporters among the punditry winced. Trump seemed to be showing contempt for American democracy.

Also, Trump, toward the end, referred to Clinton as a "nasty woman."  Absolutely unnecessary.  Let the public make that judgment.  If she's nasty, they'll know it.  Trump merely called attention to his own problems with women.

As for Clinton, the first impressions are bland.  She held her own.  She didn't make any brilliant points, and, as Brit Hume pointed out, clearly directed her comments to her own constituencies – blacks, women, LGBT, other minorities.  Hers was a kind of "get out the vote" performance.  No one is raving.   She's Hillary.   She doesn't dazzle or move audiences.

On balance, Trump could have claimed a victory, but his unforced errors muddy the waters.  We're looking forward to the first polls.

October 19, 2016       Permalink

THE FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WILL WRAP UP SOON.  THERE'LL BE NO "SHORT TAKES" TONIGHT SO WE CAN ASSESS THE DEBATE AND REPORT ON THE REACTION.  STAND BY.

FASCINATING, BUT VIEW IT WITH SKEPTICISM – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  Is it possible, just possible, that the U.S. election might follow the pattern of Britain's recent Brexit vote – where the pollsters got it all wrong?  Read with care, from Britain's Independent:   

It is news that will strike fear into the hearts of perhaps half of America and large chunks of the world outside of it.

Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump.

Bookmaker William Hill says 71 per cent of the money so far staked is for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But 65 per cent of the bets by number are for the controversial Republican.

That means a lot more punters are putting smaller bets on Trump, almost exactly the same pattern as was seen in the run up to the Brexit vote when the money was for Remain but the majority of bets were for Leave.

The bookie has cut the odds on a Trump victory from 11-2 to 4-1 over the past two days in response to a surge in bets for the reality TV star and businessman turned politician.

It comes despite a campaign bedevilled and derailed by ugly accusations of sexual abuse on the part of Trump from a growing list of women, together with his claims that the election is somehow being “rigged”.

William Hill’s spokesman and resident betting expert Graham Sharpe, an industry veteran of 44 years standing, said: “It’s very, very similar to the Brexit vote. There is a metropolitan media bias that says Trump can’t win, but they can’t vote. In betting terms, this is not a done deal. I see parallels with the Brexit vote at this stage.”

COMMENT:  Well, okay, it's an interesting theory.  But I wouldn't bet on it.

October 19, 2016       Permalink

THE BATTLE FOR MOSUL – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  The battle to retake Mosul, Iraq, from ISIS has begun.   It will be bloody and bitter, and possibly unleash a new stream of refugees on the world.  And there is another ominous possibility.  from Reuters: 

The United States expects Islamic State to use crude chemical weapons as it tries to repel an Iraqi-led offensive on the city of Mosul, U.S. officials say, although adding that the group's technical ability to develop such weapons is highly limited.

U.S. forces have begun to regularly collect shell fragments to test for possible chemical agents, given Islamic State's use of mustard agent in the months before Monday's launch of the Mosul offensive, one official said.

In a previously undisclosed incident, U.S. forces confirmed the presence of a sulfur mustard agent on Islamic State munition fragments on Oct. 5, a second official said. The Islamic State had targeted local forces, not U.S. or coalition troops.

"Given ISIL's reprehensible behavior and flagrant disregard for international standards and norms, this event is not surprising," the second official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, and using an acronym for Islamic State.

U.S. officials do not believe Islamic State has been successful so far at developing chemical weapons with particularly lethal effects, meaning that conventional weapons are still the most dangerous threat for advancing Iraqi and Kurdish forces - and any foreign advisers who get close enough.

Sulfur mustard agents can cause blistering on exposed skin and lungs. At low doses, however, that would not be deadly.

I love how the reporter tries to minimize the impact of one of the most painful and disfiguring of weapons. 

Roughly 5,000 U.S. forces are in Iraq. More than 100 of them are embedded with Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces involved with the Mosul offensive, advising commanders and helping them ensure coalition air power hits the right targets, officials said. Still, those forces are not at the front lines, they added.

COMMENT:  Gee, I don't want to be disruptive, but where are all these chemical weapons coming from?  The Syrian government also has a supply.   George W. Bush was ridiculed when weapons inspectors couldn't find stockpiles of WMD after the Iraq war, but the stuff keeps turning up.

Just askin'.

October 19, 2016       Permalink

RUMBLE IN LAS VEGAS TONIGHT – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  The final presidential debate takes place in Las Vegas tonight.  The big question is whether Donald Trump will do something new or different to resurrect his troubled campaign.  One poll out this morning, from Rasmussen, shows an even race:

Dead even. With nearly one-in-10 voters still looking beyond the top four candidates or undecided and less than three weeks to go until Election Day.

Today’s Rasmussen Reports White House Watch telephone and online survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump each picking up 42% support among Likely U.S. Voters. Seven percent (7%) still prefer Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, while one percent (1%) opt for Green Party nominee Jill Stein. But three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

But, frankly, that's an outlier.  The Fox poll, out yesterday, is more reflective of the polling averages: 

Hillary Clinton remains ahead of Donald Trump with just three weeks until Election Day.

She has a six-point lead over Trump, 45-39 percent, in a new Fox News Poll of likely voters. Clinton was up by seven points last week (45-38 percent) and by two in early October (44-42 percent). Gary Johnson stands at 5 percent and Green Party’s Jill Stein at 3 percent.

In the head-to-head matchup, Clinton’s up by 49-42 percent. It was 49-41 percent at the end of last week (Oct. 10-12).

COMMENT:  The general feeling among pundits is that Clinton holds a five to ten-point lead, and that she is heavily favored to win the election.  Indeed, much of the political discussion is now shifting to control of Congress.  The Democrats are given a pretty good chance of taking control of the Senate, especially if there's a last-minute Clinton surge, and an outside chance of taking the House.  But it should be pointed out that the Republican candidates are narrowly ahead in most of the battleground states.

Ticket splitting has decreased in recent elections, but that trend may be reversed this year.

October 19,  2016     Permalink