美国总统候选人简评

Dracula

tanis 发表于 2016-6-28 01:42
问题是现在英美的老谋深算的精英阶层都反对英国脱欧。支持的都是草根。 伦敦唯一反对脱欧的地区就是富人 ...

你是从哪儿看来的，伦敦33个borough，29个投票留在欧盟，只有4个投票离开。

英国的对外贸易，大约有一半是同欧盟国家，离开欧盟以后，欧盟肯定不会让英国随便进入他们的市场，开价肯定会很高。尤其是在伦敦的银行在欧洲大陆进行金融业务会受到非常大的阻碍，伦敦作为世界金融中心的地位有相当大的可能会失去。而且好多外国投资在英国建的厂，像福特尼桑等，是以英国为基地，向欧洲大陆卖，英国如果不能进入欧盟市场，要面临关税的话，它们很有可能将工厂搬到欧洲大陆，我读到新闻福特公司已经准备减少在英国的投资。英国经济很可能在今年底进入衰退，而且未来几年都会很动荡。从经济上讲，英国离开欧盟确实类似于自杀。

投离开欧盟票的那些人最关心的是反移民，就是最近几天，英国针对波兰移民的种族主义言论和袭击的事件就有大幅度上升。

Dracula

南京老萝卜 发表于 2016-6-28 01:46
瑞典该脱了

一个人口不到1000万的国家，大量涌入穆斯林人口，清真寺建得到处都是，把个好端端的平静的北 ...

瑞典的穆斯林难民比例很高同欧盟无关，它的邻居丹麦就少很多。原因是丹麦的反移民情绪要高很多，对申请难民的条件要苛刻很多。瑞典的文化在这个问题上很慷慨，愿意接纳难民，不过去年叙利亚难民大幅度涌入后也已经关上了大门。

Dracula

如若 发表于 2016-6-28 01:50
大伦敦区移民应该是相对最多的，精英到在其次。
我们去英国，这是最深的印象！

伦敦的移民最多，对移民也最宽容，这次英国投票留在欧盟比例最高的就在伦敦。要求离开欧盟反移民呼声最高的是英格兰北部，以前的工业化地区，随着经济全球化，过去几十年好多工厂关门，尤其是下层对未来没有什么希望。因为那儿经济不好，去那儿的移民其实并不多，但是那个地区怨气最多，认为都是移民抢了他们的工作和福利，想通过离开欧盟把移民的大门彻底关上。

Dracula

如若 发表于 2016-6-28 02:49
这个我同意，大伦敦应该是最宽容的地方了。

我同意你认为反移民的情绪在公投里起了发酵的作用，不过如果 ...

英国的日常安全同欧盟无关，英国不在申根地区，从其它欧盟国家进入英国还是一样有边境检查，像到达德国的叙利亚难民就没法去英国。英国的穆斯林主要是从英国以前的殖民地尤其是巴基斯坦那儿移民过去的。离开欧盟起不了什么作用。

这次英国反移民主要是反东欧人到英国找工作。这些欧盟人对英国的安全没有任何威胁，同英国文化也融合的非常好。这些教育程度低的英国人如果是反对中东，巴基斯坦乃至中国的移民我还能够理解一些。但这些东欧人长得和他们都差不多，文化上也很接近，而且很努力工作，一些英国人对他们这么强的敌意，我只能叫xenophobia。

Dracula

tanis 发表于 2016-6-28 03:15
早上听广播，貌似欧盟还有点儿敦促伦敦的意思，让它不要拖延办理离婚手续。。。像德国之类应该也有很多工 ...

现在英国方面的问题是主张英国离开欧盟的那一派，他们自己对接下来应该怎么办都一点没底。一个选择是挪威方案，EEA成员，可以继续进入欧盟市场，但是每年还是要向欧盟交钱，欧盟的法规还是一样要执行，还是一样有freedom of movement，其它欧盟国家的人照样可以在英国工作。唯一的区别在于，英国不是欧盟成员国，对欧盟决策包括各项法规制定没了发言权。如果这是英国的谈判立场的话，实现起来不难，欧盟会比较痛快的同意。这样其实和留在欧盟没什么大的区别，就是没了英国在欧盟事务上的政治影响。这对英国经济的冲击是最小，但是我估计投离开欧盟票的那些选民看到这个方案会觉得他们上了当，尤其是欧盟国家的人还是可以随便到英国工作，对移民还是没法控制。

还有一个方案是加拿大方案，就是和欧盟达成自由贸易协议，但是没有freedom of movement，欧盟人不能随便到英国工作。这个方案的问题是欧盟不可能这么容易的把市场开放给英国，这样会有别的国家觉得这种安排不错，也想步英国的后尘。在物品的自由贸易协议还是有可能会达成，但是在服务方面不太可能，加拿大同欧盟的自由贸易协议里就不包括服务，而英国的主要出口尤其是金融业就是服务。这个方案对英国经济会是很差的选择。

现在英国很有可能的下一任首相Boris Johnson尽管是这次主张离开欧盟的主将，内心其实是想留在欧盟的，他那么干是为了夺得首相的位置。让他选我估计他会选挪威的方案。但是他鼓动离开欧盟的最主要的理由就是移民问题，要是仍然允许欧盟人随便到英国工作，我估计会很快被赶下台。因此他现在正想办法把这个弯给转过来，选择拖延时间，希望事态发展能让挪威方案变得更可行。

对欧盟方面来说，现在这种情况无限期拖下去的话，会增加不确定性，对经济有害。而且，他们想给英国以惩罚，条件会提的很苛刻，以警告其它欧盟国家不要步英国后尘。因此希望及早谈判。

Dracula

Donald Trump Has A 20 Percent Chance Of Becoming President

Nate Silver过去几次大选的预测都是挺准的。

Dracula

Dracula 发表于 2016-6-30 03:46
Donald Trump Has A 20 Percent Chance Of Becoming President

Nate Silver过去几次大选的预测都是挺准的 ...

2016 General Election Forecast

按照Nate Silver的估计，electoral college，希拉里能拿到343票，Trump能拿到194票。最近在摇摆州的民意调查，希拉里在North Carolina都领先的挺大。如果连NC都能给拿下（2012年Romney赢得北卡）的话，这次大选民主党肯定会大胜。Arizona以前是铁杆的红州，但最近的民调Trump只有很小的优势，Nate Silver模拟的结果，Trump赢Arizona的概率只有52%。就目前来看他的形势确实是挺悲观。而且最近的一些消息，像Star of David事件，表现出来的Trump搞竞选的unprofessionalism，我觉得他要想把差距追上困难很大。

Dracula

如若 发表于 2016-7-5 09:14
Paulson 的 endorsement ， 还有民主党提名两位变形人为国会议员
你以为会对民调有何影响啊。。 ...

我估计影响不大吧。对于教育程度低的白人，估计就不知道Henry Paulson是谁，如果知道是以前Goldman Sachs的老板，2008年金融危机时救助银行的策划者，估计还能让他们更愿意选择Trump。但是对于教育程度高收入高的白人，这一点可能会更坐实他们对Trump的不安，他的榜样会更可能让以前温和派共和党人也会捏着鼻子投希拉里一票，或者会选Gary Johnson。这两者我估计会抵消吧。这次大选在收入超过10万美元的那个群体里希拉里可能会特别的大胜。但是Trump在低收入白人那儿可能也会优势挺大。

在Transgender的这个问题上，美国的文化正在变得更宽容。最近国防部下令允许transgender的人入伍，也没引起轩然大波，共和党也没在这个问题上对Obama政府进行什么攻击。在LGBT问题上，Trump的立场其实是接近于自由派。奥兰多恐怖事件发生后，还试图拉同性恋的票。北卡因为洗手间的问题闹得沸沸扬扬，Trump从来也没在这个问题上插过嘴。这个不会是他攻击希拉里的方向。

最近的Star of David事件，让我觉得Trump搞竞选实在是太不专业。他的手下就没有个把关的部门，预先查一查这些材料图片是从哪来的，是不是有不合适的内容。本来这个周末大家应该是谈论希拉里的电子邮件，她和FBI的谈话，现在注意力都集中在Trump是不是反犹主义者。这事就是无心，也让人怀疑他运营大型组织的能力。连竞选活动都搞不好的话，能运行的好庞大的多的联邦政府吗？

Dracula

馒头笼子 发表于 2016-7-5 15:58
我周围的中产还是心存疑虑。尤其是希拉里现在那个副总统大热Julian Castro。狂推Section 8。 真不明白但 ...

我也很喜欢Bloomberg。他经商很成功，比Trump强不少。当过3任纽约市市长，干得很好，从政经验也可以说挺丰富。他的政治观点中间稍稍偏左，我是中间偏右，对他的soda tax尽管不喜欢，但整体上还是很接近。他这个人好像很想当总统，3月份的时候决定不参选肯定是经过深思熟虑。美国历史上第三党的记录从来就很不怎么样。1912年，非常受欢迎的前任总统西奥多罗斯福作为Progressive Party的候选人都失利，别的人更没有希望。美国的竞选制度是First Past the Post，赢者通吃，对第三党特别不利，1992年Ross Perot获得20%的选票，却一张选举人票都没有。现在美国政治两极化越来越厉害，这次大选风头最劲的Trump和Sanders可以算是极右和极左，像Bloomberg这样实际做事的中间派估计也就是在收入高教育程度高的人群中会有不少的吸引力，人数会很有限，没法靠这个赢得大选，我估计他几乎不可能达到Perot的20%的水平。而且第三党的候选人要想登上所有50个州的选票好像就很不容易。Bloomberg好像找人研究过，3月份是最后期限，晚了就来不及了。而且这要花很多钱，有人估计得上亿美元，加上选举还要再花好几亿美元，Bloomberg可能是觉得一点获胜希望没有的话，花这么多钱不值，徒然惹来好多讥笑。美国政治的两极化趋势确实让人有些担忧，我喜欢的偏中间的Bloomberg, Kasich, Jeb Bush这次一点机会都没有，民主党共和党都在往极端的方向发展。

Dracula

如若 发表于 2016-7-5 09:14
Paulson 的 endorsement ， 还有民主党提名两位变形人为国会议员
你以为会对民调有何影响啊。。 ...

Trump May Become The First Republican In 60 Years To Lose White College Graduates

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-may-become-the-first-republican-in-60-years-to-lose-white-college-graduates/

Donald Trump does really well among white voters without a college degree. Indeed, he is on track to carry that group by a wider margin than Mitt Romney did over President Obama four years ago. But there’s another side to that coin: While Trump is outperforming your run-of-the-mill Republican among whites without a college degree, he’s underperforming among white voters with a college degree. In fact, he is on a track to lose white college graduates.

That’s really unusual for a Republican, and it means that among white voters overall, he’s probably not holding a winning hand.

If you look at seven live interview polls taken since Trump wrapped up the nomination in May, he has trailed among whites with a college degree by an average of 6 percentage points. The same polls have him losing among the overall electorate by an average of 5 percentage points. (That’s about wherethe race stands now.)

        TRUMP’S MARGIN
POLL        START DATE        OVERALL        WHITE COLLEGE GRADUATES
CBS/NYT        May 13        -6        -4
NBC/WSJ        May 15        -3        0
ABC/Post        May 16        +2        +1
CBS News        June 9        -6        -21
CNN        June 16        -5        -8
NBC/WSJ        June 19        -5        -1
ABC/Post        June 20        -12        -8
Average                -5        -6

At first glance, it shouldn’t be too surprising that Trump faces a deficit with whites with a college degree. He struggled with them tremendously compared to whites without a college degree during the GOP primary season, and you can easily imagine how his nativist appeals have less resonance among those who have more education.

On the other hand, Trump’s performance is downright shocking from a historical perspective. Romney won whites with a college degree by 6 percentage points over Obama, according to the American National Elections Studies. In fact, the American National Elections Studies showsRepublicans carrying that group in every election from 1956 to 2012.



What makes this year’s turn of events even more interesting is how Hillary Clinton is doing this well among whites with a college degree even as she isn’t blowing Trump out. Lyndon Johnson couldn’t carry whites with a college degree in 1964 when he was defeating Barry Goldwater by 23 percentage points overall. That is, there has been a big leftward shift among white voters with a college degree without the rest of the electorate following along.
You can see the dramatic movement among white college graduates by comparing them with other groups. In late June, Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz looked at 17 demographic groups and compared how the groups voted in 2012 according to exit polls with how they said they were going to vote in 2016 in a June CNN survey. He wrote that the results “show an extremely high degree of consistency in group voting patterns between these two elections.”

One group, however, stands out for its inconsistency: white voters with a college degree. I re-created Abramowitz’s work and found that Clinton does about 17 percentage points better among whites with a college degree in the CNN survey than we’d expect based on the 2012 exit polls. Neither Trump nor Clinton does greater than 9 points better than expected among any of the other 16 demographic groups studied. The average difference from the expected result in the CNN/ORC survey based on the 2012 exit poll is just 4 percentage points.2

The 2016 election is being contested along a different battle line than presidential elections usually are. Well-educated white voters say they’re going to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in numbers that just haven’t been seen over the past 60 years. That could have big ramifications for our political discourse, creating a class-based divide among white voters that isn’t akin to any other American election in recent memory.

This split between white voters with and without a college degree could also make a big difference in where this election is decided. As Margaret Talev, Jennifer Epstein and Gregory Giroux wrote at Bloomberg Politics, Clinton’s strength among white voters with a college degree could aid her in swing states like Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia. She may do worse than Obama did in states where whites without a college degree are more plentiful, like Iowa and Ohio.

In terms of the national vote, Clinton’s strength with white voters with a college degree could win her the presidency. Even using relatively conservative estimates for how well Obama did among whites with at least a college degree in 2012, Clinton expands her overall margin by 3 percentage points compared to Obama because of how well she is doing among white voters with at least a college degree. For now, that’s making up for her lack of support compared to Obama among white voters without a college degree. We’ll see if that’s enough in the months to come.

Dracula

tanis 发表于 2016-7-7 06:13
哈哈~ 正准备来问问伯爵对FBI不准备告女克有什么看法~ 没想到就已经有关于trump的更新了~ ...

James Comey 关于希拉里电子邮件具体的评论是很负面的。但是对于希拉里的支持者来说，也可以把没有起诉理解为她没有大错，该支持她还会支持她，我估计这件事不会有多大影响。另外Trump的大嘴也确实是关不上，就是最近几天，先是Star of David的反犹主义的tweet，又是赞扬萨达姆，而不是利用希拉里的这些坏消息一心一意的攻击她。就是电子邮件这些事，James Comey关于希拉里的很多话其实很重，Trump完全可以借过来用，攻击效果会很好。他却偏要往阴谋理论上引，说没有起诉是Obama政府对FBI插手干预的结果。对于铁杆的Trump支持者来说这会很受用，但是对中间选民来说，我觉得效果未必会好。赌博预测市场对电子邮件这件事的反应是对希拉里来说稍稍有一点利好。

Dracula

刚看到的，

Charles Stevenson, long-time Congressional staffer and author of many books about the politics and policy of national security, write about Donald Trump’s meeting this morning with Republicans on Capitol Hill:

You may have seen this TPM report about Trump's meeting with House GOP.

I think this part is especially significant:

Another Republican in the meeting who declined to go on the record so he could speak candidly told TPM that Trump was asked pointedly if he would defend Article I of the Constitution.

"Not only will I stand up for Article One," Trump enthusiastically stated, according to the member in the room. "I'll stand up for Article Two, Article 12, you name it of the Constitution."

The Republican member said that Trump's lack of knowledge about how many articles exist, gave him "a little pause." (The Constitution has seven articles and 27 amendments.)

[This is Stevenson again:] Besides indicating Trump has little real knowledge of the Constitution, it also shows an insensitivity to the purpose of the question.

Article I lists the powers of the Congress, which many Republicans say has been undermined by an overreaching Obama. Trump doesn't seem to understand that he was being asked about legislative-executive relations and the proper balance between those branches. He didn't know, and probably doesn't care. Lawmakers should.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes ... onstitution/490373/

Dracula

南京老萝卜 发表于 2016-6-28 01:46
瑞典该脱了

一个人口不到1000万的国家，大量涌入穆斯林人口，清真寺建得到处都是，把个好端端的平静的北 ...

刚看到的

Denmark’s Tougher Citizenship Test Stumps Even Its Natives

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/0 ... tizenship-test.html


Which Danish restaurant gained a third Michelin star in February 2016?

How many municipalities are there in Denmark?

In what constellation did the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe discover a new star?

Questions such as those are part of a new Danish citizenship test so difficult that more than two-thirds of applicants who took it for the first time in June failed, the Integration Ministry confirmed this week.

The center-right government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, which has been tightening rules on immigration, has made little effort to hide the goal of the new test: to make it significantly harder to become Danish, as Europe struggles to cope with a refugee crisis.

But critics of the test — which includes 40 questions covering subjects such as Danish film, the functioning of local government and, of course, the Vikings — say that it is too tough, and that even many Danes would be hard-pressed to pass it.

Danish Radio recently asked the actor Morten Grunwald a question on the test: When was the premiere of the first movie about the Olsen Gang, a fictional criminal syndicate? Mr. Grunwald, a star of the film, replied, “That, I can’t even answer myself.” His memory was jogged when he was given the choices: 1968, 1970 or 1971. (It was 1968.)

Jakob Nielsen, editor of the online edition of Politiken, an influential left-leaning newspaper, said the proximity of the years given in some of the multiple-choice questions seemed calculated to stump test-takers. For example, one question asks if the life span of the Danish composer Carl Nielsen was 1865 to 1931, 1870 to 1940 or 1892 to 1965? (The first is correct.)

He said that when Politiken posted the test online, many readers failed it. “There is no doubt that the test is aimed to discourage immigrants from coming here,” he said. “Some of the questions are just ridiculous, and many Danes couldn’t even answer them.”

He added, however, that applicants were provided free preparatory material that covered the test’s contents, and that aspiring Danish citizens who were determined enough could persevere.

Inger Stojberg, the integration minister, confirmed that 68.8 percent of the 2,400 people who took the test in June had failed it. But she was unrepentant about the test’s difficulty, telling Politiken that being Danish is “very special” and that “citizenship is something you have to earn.”

“Too many did not prepare properly,” she said.

The new test comes as the Danish government has clamped down on immigration, including by introducing a law requiring recently arrived refugees to hand over valuables, such as gold or jewelry, to help pay for the costs of lodging them.

The test replaced a version introduced by the previous center-left government in 2014, and critics like Mr. Nielsen say it is undeniably harder. Applicants must now get 80 percent of the answers correct to pass, up from 73 percent previously.

Even without the citizenship exam, the requirements to qualify for Danish citizenship are arduous and include passing an oral and written exam in Danish, a difficult language with an abundance of vowel sounds that linguists say makes it hard to learn. Applicants must also be able to prove that they have been able to support themselves financially for four and a half of the past five years.

In Denmark, as in several European countries, a far-right populist party has been appealing to voters by warning against the perils of immigration. The Danish People’s Party has been a central proponent of the tougher citizenship test. Mr. Rasmussen’s governing center-right party does not have a majority in Parliament and often needs the support of lawmakers from the People’s Party to pass legislation.

With its generous welfare state, strong tradition of egalitarianism and Scandinavian quality of life, Denmark is an attractive country for many foreigners. The country was recently ranked as the world’s happiest for the third time since 2013.

As to the questions that started this article, Geranium in Copenhagen was the restaurant that got three stars; there are 98 municipalities; and the constellation was Cassiopeia.

Dracula

怎这样呢 发表于 2016-7-27 00:47
楼主要弃楼了

我前几天在瑞士，这几天在威尼斯，美国大选的新闻没怎么关注。再过几个星期我可能会评论一下。

Dracula

海天 发表于 2016-3-7 05:39
如果提升到这样的高度（第六政党系统的终结），那还真值得好好关注一下初选

加拿大这里喜欢川普的看起 ...

刚看到的

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes ... onald-trump/494075/

Many people have noted the campaign-style similarities between Donald Trump and Rob Ford, the late mayor of Toronto. John Spragge, who lives in Toronto, says that the Capt. Khan episode points out an important difference:

I am the Canadian systems analyst who sometimes writes you from Toronto. Earlier in this campaign, I compared Donald Trump to the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford.

I still believe Mr. Ford drew much of his support from people who feel alienated and left out, and I believe getting elected mayor had dire personal consequences for Mr. Ford, just as I believe attaining the presidency might have serious consequences for Mr. Trump. However, over the past week I have come to see important distinctions between Mr. Ford and Mr. Trump; I think Mr. Ford’s greater skill at retail politics speaks to a fundamental decency. As I put it in a web log post [JF emphasis added]:

When I asked myself how Rob Ford would have responded to Khizr Khan’s speech, it occurred to me: Rob Ford would have called the Khans. He would have talked to them. Rob always called people who disagreed with him. He would have listened the he Khans. He would have expressed sympathy with their sacrifice. He would probably not have changed any of his positions, but he would have given the Khans the courtesy of a hearing.

All Rob Ford’s most vehement opponents, which some times included me, acknowledged his ability as a retail politician. He listened to people, and whether he agreed with us or not he gave the impression he cared what we thought. I think he genuinely did; I think he had a real desire to help and connect with people, and unlike Donald Trump, he did not respond to opposition with the fury of wounded vanity.

Rob Ford was diagnosed with cancer during the last election and has since died. Since the emergence of Mr. Trump, many Toronto residents have seen the parallels between the social forces that gave rise to his candidacy and Mr. Trump’s. I think we owe it to his memory to acknowledge that nothing in his record suggests he would have treated the Khans the way Trump did.

Dracula

刚看到的，挺有意思。作者David Frum是保守派，当过小布什的speechwriter，但是这次大选反对Trump。

Why Trump Supporters Think He'll Win

DAVID FRUM  JUL 29, 2016  

http://www.theatlantic.com/polit ... onald-trump/493619/

Perhaps the hardest thing to do in contemporary American politics is to imagine how the world looks from the other side. I’ve made no secret of why, as a Republican, I oppose Donald Trump and what he stands for. But I’ve also been talking to his supporters and advisors, trying to understand how they see and hear the same things that I do, and draw such very different conclusions. What follows isn’t a transcription—it’s a synthesis of the conversations I’ve had, and the insights I’ve gleaned, presented in the voice of an imagined Trump supporter.

“You people in the Acela corridor aren’t getting it. Again. You think Donald Trump is screwing up because he keeps saying things that you find offensive or off-the-wall. But he’s not talking to you. You’re not his audience, you never were, and you never will be. He’s playing this game in a different way from anybody you’ve ever seen. And he’s winning too, in a different way from anybody you’ve ever seen.

“Our convention worked. Donald—I’m not on the payroll, I can call him that—Donald energized his voters: people who are afraid of crime and worried about the mass immigration that’s transforming their country and displacing them. We talk a lot about polls, but you ignore the polls that don’t show what you expect to see.

“Here’s what’s going to happen. We’re going to run up vote totals like you’ve never seen in places you’ve never been. Not just coal country, either. No, we don’t have what you’d call a proper campaign. What do we need it for? Campaigns spend most of their money on TV ads that do nothing except entertain you on YouTube on your lunch hour—oh, and pay huge commissions to the consultants who make them. It’s all a waste and rip-off. If our message is exciting, our voters will get to the polls on their own. And you have to admit: Our message is exciting!

“You think it’s crazy when Donald goes after Ted Cruz about the unanswered questions in his life. It’s crazy like a fox. Trump is forcing people in the party—a lot of them already don't like Ted, you know that, right?—he’s forcing those people to think about whether they’re really going to let this guy posture as the keeper of the party conscience. There are a lot of unanswered questions about Ted: You know that, way beyond the Kennedy assassination. Donald's showing: Nobody backstabs him without paying a price. He’s the boss of the party now, he’s going to be treated like the boss, and if you don’t respect him, he’s going to bring down the hammer. That’s a good lesson for everybody else—and look how quiet and respectful all those Republicans are now. Donald knows that Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and even Mike Pence want nothing better than to lay him low. But every time they bite their tongues as he takes off the head of Ted or whomever … he makes it that much more impossible for them ever to say, ‘Oh Donald? No, I had nothing to with him.’ They all wear the Trump logo now—and they always will wear that logo, whatever happens in November.

“The Putin thing. You think you’ve really nailed Donald with the Putin thing. Get it through your head: Our people are done fighting wars for your New World Order. We fought the Cold War to stop the Communists from taking over America, not to protect Estonia. We went to Iraq because you said it was better to fight them over there than fight them over here. Then you invited them over here anyway! Then you said that we had to keep inviting them over here if we wanted to win over there. And we figured out: You care a lot more about the “inviting" part than the “winning" part. So no more. Not until we face a real threat, and have a real president who’ll do whatever it takes to win. Whatever it takes.

"That’s another way you don’t understand Donald. When you squawk: 'Oh, it’s so horrible, he’ll waterboard prisoners, he won’t ask our troops to risk their lives so as to protect a terrorist’s mother-in-law …' when you talk like that, what our people hear is that you are a lot clearer about what you won’t do to protect the American people than what you will do.

“Tom Kean/Tim Kaine? So, so sorry we got the name of your latest precious progressive New South governor a little mixed up. Just kidding: not even a little bit sorry. What you need to take on board is how profoundly so many Americans do not give a … oh yeah, you still live in a country where people don’t use language like that when they talk about politics. Come visit Reddit sometime and see how the other half lives. But I’ll spare your feelings. They like that Donald doesn’t know any of that sh …. Oops. Sorry again.

"You Acela people live in a beautiful country where everything works. You believe in institutions because they work for you. So it bothers you that Donald doesn’t seem to know what the OECD does or who’s in charge of the FDIC. But our people don’t believe in institutions any more. The institutions they do still care about—the military and the cops—you use for props when you need them, and as dumping grounds when you don’t. I noticed that when Tim Kaine took a bow for his son’s military service, he pointed out that he was a Marine—because we all know that what you’ve done to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Yeah, they’re just as lethal as Obama and Hillary said. When you spend as much as the rest of the planet combined, you can make a lot of things go boom—even if the soldiers can’t do chin ups any more and the sailors get pregnant when they decide their tours of duty have gone on too long. And the cops! One minute you’re calling them murderers, the next you’re slobbering all over them. Our voters are cops. They know who’s on their side. Not you.

“You loved the Democratic convention didn’t you? Soaring rhetoric, we’re all together in just one big beautiful rainbow quilt: illegal aliens and billionaires, all together. And the flags? So many flags. You wave the flag one day every four years, and you think it means you’ve taken America from us. You haven’t, not yet—and that’s another thing our voters will be wanting to say on Election Day. Lots of ideas too: free this, free that, more investment in this, higher taxes on that, and ‘common sense gun laws.’ I bet you don’t own a gun. I bet you’ve never had a DUI either. So it wouldn’t worry you that you could lose the first if you get the second. But it worries our voters. Their lives are kind of messed up. They get into trouble. That’s why they want guns for themselves, and not just for Mayor Bloomberg’s bodyguards.

“Here’s the bottom line. You live in an America that’s still a lot like your parents’ America. It’s mostly white. Nobody’s displacing and replacing you. It’s pretty safe too. You can read about rising crime—you don’t live it. In your America, you worry about how there aren’t enough women making Hollywood films or sitting on corporate boards. In our America, the gender gap closed a long time ago—and then went into reverse. Obama in the Oval Office was humiliating enough. But Hillary will be worse: We’re going to lose any idea at all that leadership is a man’s job.

“You’ve been building up to this for a long time. No more Superheroes rescuing women in the movies. The girl always has to throw the last punch herself. In the commercials, Dad’s either an idiot—or he’s doing the housework with his boyfriend.

"And you know what? It’s not just our hillbilly voters who are going to vote ‘no’ to all that. A lot of men you never imagined will vote for us. Trump’s going to do better with Latino men than you expect—probably no worse than Romney. He’s going to do better with black men than Romney ever did. And his numbers with white men will be out of sight. Every time you demand that Donald show respect to Hillary—while laughing as Hillary disrespects Donald—you push those numbers up.

“You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you. Donald's a scam artist, you tell me. You’re from The Atlantic? Read that great book by one of your former colleagues, Jack Beatty, about Boston’s Mayor Curley, The Rascal King. Curley was a scam artist. The Boston Irish loved him for it—even when he scammed them, too—because Curley pissed off the people the Boston Irish hated and who hated them. (I can still say ‘pissed off,’ right?) It’s going to be just that way with Donald. I mean, Mr. Trump. I mean, President Trump.”

Dracula

今天Trump对他的竞选班子进行了调整，很大程度上削弱了他之前的campaign manager，Paul Manafort的权力。这也从侧面说明就是Trump自己都意识到了现在形势相当不利，就像球队一样，赢球的时候是很少有换教练的。但是他这次换上来的这两个人还是让我摇头，Stephen Bannon是极右网站，整天散布阴谋理论的Breitbart News的老板，而且没有任何以前搞过竞选的经历，我很难相信他能有挽狂澜于既倒的能力，而且这也表明Trump不会pivot，变得更presidential，而是会沿着最近几个星期的路走下去。希拉里方面应该对Trump的这个调整挺满意。

最近几个星期的poll，不管pollster意识形态的倾向是什么，在national poll里Trump就没有领先的。在各州的民意调查里，希拉里在所有的摇摆州里都领先，而且像一直到2012年时都非常接近的州，Virginia，Colorado优势很明显，基本上可以被归到已经拿下的那个类别。Trump获胜的路径变得越来越窄。连Arizona，Georgia这些以前的铁杆红州现在都变得希拉里稍占优势。Nate Silver模型的预测，Trump的获胜概率降到了11%，已经离5%小概率事件的定义不远了。另外Trump在各州ground operation也就是在选举日把他的支持者动员出来投票的组织人员几乎没有，完全依靠共和党全国委员会，但他在几个星期前还在向共和党的establishment像Paul Ryan，John Kasich等开火，我很怀疑这些人能愿意给Trump出什么力，尤其是Ohio对Trump至关重要，目前的形势，如果丢了Ohio，很难看出他怎么能够取得electoral college的多数。而Kasich是Ohio的州长，因此怎么看，Trump的形势都很不乐观。

现在Trump一个可能翻身的机会是9月底同希拉里的辩论。不过希拉里这个人的个人魅力尽管不怎么样，从08年和这次的表现来看，辩论的能力还是很不错的。再考虑到Trump在政策问题上知识的极端贫乏，以及喜欢大嘴乱喷的习惯，我觉得辩论时他能扯平不失分就不错了。他和他的团队不能寄希望于这个。如果未来2个多月发生超大规模的恐怖主义袭击事件，或许会是他翻盘的机会。但是前几个月美国国内和国际上也发生了好几次大规模恐怖事件，结果好像并没有多大帮助，一个原因是Trump管不住自己的大嘴，我不觉得他在这个方面能有什么改变。还有的可能突发事件是Wikileaks可能会公布一些希拉里的电子邮件，但这得是极其的damning才行，否则的话，她untrustworthy的形象其实已经在她民意调查的数字里体现出来了，小的丑闻我不觉得对她的支持带来多大的损害。但这可能Trump能赢的最现实的希望了。

Dracula

上个星期Trump的竞选班子换人后，他似乎在pivot。发表讲话对以前的一些言论表示有些后悔。到Baton　Rouge救助灾民显得更presidential。发表讲话似乎在寻求黑人选民的支持，尽管那是在白人区，下面的听众绝大多数都是白人，看着让人觉得别扭。甚至他最新的campaign manager在周末暗示他关于非法移民的政策都有可能松动。这pivot的效果究竟怎样我们还需要等几个星期才能完全确定，我个人是觉得这来的太晚了点。如果他5月份就这么干的话，他现在的形势很可能会和希拉里拉近很多，甚至都有可能领先。而且Trump也确实是管不住自己，忍了几天不乱说话，今天就又发了这么条tweet



我觉得就是Trump真觉得pivot是对的，也没有这个自我控制能力能坚持到11月8日。

Dracula

南京老萝卜 发表于 2016-6-28 11:54
伯爵的这个论述很透彻，把英国去留的利害关系分析得还是挺清楚的。

英国就算这么做，也没有什么不好的。 ...

Taco Trucks and the Soul of America

MOLLY BALL  SEP 6, 2016  

http://www.theatlantic.com/polit ... -of-america/498845/





When Marco Gutierrez, the founder of Latinos for Trump, warned last week that increased immigration could lead to “taco trucks on every corner,” he was widely and understandably mocked. Commentators lined up to sing the praises of mobile Mexican food, from conservatives lauding free enterprise to liberals decrying xenophobia. Given the deliciousness of tacos, many opined, “Taco Trucks on Every Corner” would make a compelling platform for a politician; the Arizona Democratic Party changed its marquee to use the phrase.





But it was clear enough what Gutierrez meant. Plenty of Americans do see the increasing prevalence of foreign cultures in the U.S., including Hispanic culture, as an unwelcome invasion. They resent having to press 1 for English when they call customer service; or they worry that yoga encourages satanism, or that women in headscarves mean creeping sharia. Trump’s campaign appeals powerfully to these people, with his assertion that “we don’t have a country anymore” and his nostalgic vow to make America great again, presumably by returning it to a time before Taco Bell, Univision, and the George Lopez show.

Is this what Americans want? In the U.K., the surprising result of the June Brexit vote revealed a larger than anticipated grassroots revolt against the culture of diverse, immigrant-friendly cities. Is there a Brexit-like silent majority in the United States, too, of Americans so unsettled by diversity and multiculturalism that they want to banish taco trucks?

I don’t know the answer to that. But I keep thinking about a remarkable chart that I came across in July, the visualization of a Pew Research Center poll about attitudes toward diversity in the U.S. and 10 different European countries. The respondents were asked whether increasing diversity made their country a better or a worse place to live. The disparity in the results between the U.S. and the Europeans is shocking:





A large majority of Americans, nearly 3 in 5, say increasing diversity improves their nation. But all the European countries sharply disagree; in none of the other countries is this a majority view, with the pro-diversity faction ranging from a high of 36 percent in Sweden to a low of just 10 percent of Greeks.

Just as notably, very few Americans believe diversity is actually worsening the country. Only a small fraction, 7 percent, hold this view, while the remaining one-third are simply indifferent. That’s another sharp contrast with Europe, where at least one-fifth of all the countries surveyed felt diversity was making their country a worse place to live. More than half of Italians, and nearly two-thirds of Greeks, believe this.

There are differences between Americans of different political persuasions: About half of conservatives are pro-diversity, compared to three-fourths of self-described liberals. The pro-diversity attitude is also more common among Americans with post-secondary education (64 percent) than those with a high-school education or less (48 percent).

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, a subsequent Pew breakdown showed, were more likely than Trump supporters to favor increased diversity, 72 percent to 40 percet. But most Trump supporters were merely indifferent; just 16 percent of Trump voters said diversity was making America worse. Contrast that with the Europeans: In the U.K., for example, diversity is favored by a bare majority of liberals and a quarter of conservatives.

This, to me, is the real American exceptionalism. Americans aren’t perfect, especially where race is concerned. But we embrace pluralism like no other country on earth. This is the soul of America, and it’s solidly pro-taco truck.

Dracula

cadgn 发表于 2016-9-9 00:39
伯爵对昨天的迷你辩论怎么看？

感觉西太内容不少，可是也被迫处于守势，为她的TRACKRECORDS辩解。老床内容 ...

辩论我没看，看到一些评论，觉得两个人表现都一般。希拉里对电子邮件还是没准备出令人满意的回答，Trump对普京的赞扬说将军们在Obama任内被reduced to rubble，也招来不少批评。我觉得算平局吧。过去几个星期尽管Trump在民意调查上追上不少，现在落后还是挺多。历史上过去半个世纪，劳动节过后，差距象现在这么大的11月翻盘的只有1980年一次。因此如果9月底开始的三次辩论是平局的话，对Trump会是坏消息。