Monday, December 5, 2016

What Actually Happened

We now have the benefit of almost a month, and plenty of post-mortems to understand the 2016 election. That's good, because the number of hot takes and accusatory conversations in regards to the election have spiraled out of control. I hope that by now, we can have a real discussion of everything based on some semblance of facts.

First, let's understand exactly what happened. In 2012, President Obama won the election with 66.5 million votes, and 51% of the electorate, while Mitt Romney lost the election with 61.5 million votes, and 47% of the electorate. In 2012, President Obama received 332 electoral votes, to Romney's 206. In 2016, Hillary Clinton received about 48% of the vote with 65.5 million votes to date. Donald Trump is approaching 63 million votes to date, and received just about 46% of the vote. In terms of actual results, this is what happened.

So how did this happen? Hillary's diminished returns, as compared to President Obama's 2012 run, are caused by a substantial drop among white working class households, but also a smaller percentage of African-American votes in a smaller African-American turnout. She managed to not drop off more because of a particularly strong showing among Latinos, especially in the West, but concentrated in Arizona, Texas, and also in Georgia (all of which she lost, but much closer than President Obama). Trump, by inverse, won with astronomical numbers of white working class voters, and improvement among African-Americans. Despite exit polls saying differently on Election Day, it does not appear that Trump did very well with Latinos at all. Trump's surge among white voters, and to a lesser extent African-Americans, helped him to win in the key swing-states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Hillary's substantial surge with Latinos was concentrated in fairly large, but ultimately still red states along the Southern edge of the U.S.

All of this should be taken to prove a few points about this election, many of which people are saying the opposite.

  1. This was not a low turnout election at all. In fact, it's probably the second most attended election in American history- in raw vote terms.
  2. The polls were not off, nationally. They said Hillary had about a 2-3% lead. She won by 2%, in the popular vote, which is what they polled.
  3. While there are some party leaders and would-be leaders who want to talk about turnout and organizing, these were not Clinton's issues. She had a ton of organizers, and they turned out lots of voters.
  4. White working class people still matter. They will in the future too. It's time to deal with it.
We can debate why these things happened- and will in future posts- but it's important that we start to agree on what actually happened. You can only move effectively forward with facts. 

Friday, December 2, 2016

The Coastal Trap

Hillary Clinton now leads by more than 2.5 million votes, or about 1.9%. She lost the election, but got substantially more votes than Donald Trump. Because this was the system everyone agreed to run under before hand, there's not a whole lot of sense complaining about that now. Trump won under the rules the 2016 election were contested under. He'll get to be President. That's not to say that this makes things any better.

We've heard a lot of Democrats in the past few weeks talk about being a "coastal" party. The leadership, the candidates, and the policies reflect a party of New York, California, Massachusetts, and Washington. They're right. Every single state Hillary Clinton won, with the exception of Illinois (which is on a Great Lake), Colorado, Nex Mexico, and Nevada, is within an hour's drive of the beach, or is on the shore. We clearly are a coastal party. That does seem bad, if you want to win.

Let's have a reality check though for a second- that is where most of America is. Hillary Clinton is going to receive more votes than Donald Trump, by a lot. Our economy is driven by California, New York, and the other large, blue states on the coasts. Our culture, the things we are entertained by, are also coming from those places. It would seem like we should listen to those places a little bit more- they are the majority.

But we're not. By a 306-232 margin, we're not. We're letting Western Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah tell us what our future is. We're letting Michigan and Wisconsin. We're letting Northern Florida tell us how we will answer the call of tomorrow. We're bowing to the wisdom of North Dakota and Arkansas.

For the second time this century, the candidate who won the popular vote will lose the Presidential Election, because of "flyover country." Our Congress has an inherent geographical bias towards lands outside of our cities. While Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York pay the bills, they are prisoners of the electoral college, where Wyoming counts more than Los Angeles County, and almost as much as Nevada on the whole. We have a Congress that is hostile to the way of life in our economic engines, and a limited voice in the Presidential election that makes their votes count less.

I am not saying that Democrats shouldn't hear voices outside of Manhattan, what i'm saying is that perhaps southeast Ohio should open their ears a bit too. If life is so bad in my native Rust Belt, perhaps that's because folks there aren't changing with the times and moving forward. Let's stop beating on the coastal "elites," many of whom are at work right now making a living too, and start being honest with ourselves- if we're going to be a great nation, our future is a lot more like Brooklyn or Silicon Valley, and a lot less like smalltown America.

The Paralysis of Losing

To the highest skilled eyes, it was obvious in September of 2011. Certainly by the end of 2012, anyone could tell. Then, along came 2013, and the Phillies got worse- much worse. They'd lose 89 games a year in 2013 and 2014, before dropping to 99 losses in 2015. Until August of 2014, the team seemed to have no interest in doing anything to change it either. Except for a brief moment in 2012 when they traded a free-agent-to-be, Shane Victorino, and their primed outfielder Hunter Pence, the Phillies seemed to be in denial about where they were in the world.

The Phillies spent several seasons in denial of how bad the team had become, and refused to move on from their 2008 heroes. A cynic might say that was because Chase Utley still "sold tickets." A more charitable man might say that the team still hoped their stars would bounce back. It took until David Montgomery was forced out in favor of Pat Gillick as team President for the Phillies to face the music- they stunk, and needed to divest themselves of payroll and big names, in favor of prospects. They finally did that over a 13 month period from August of 2014 until the beginning of September in 2015. Sure, they had to take a 99 loss season in there, but they bounced back nicely, improving by eight games in 2016. It stands to reason that if health holds in 2017, the young Phillies should improve again.

Now though, a new paralysis grips this team, still related to a losing mentality- the do-nothing paralysis. The Phillies are not rumored to be in on any of the big name trades on the market ahead of next week's Winter Meetings. No Andrew McCutchen, no Chris Sale, no Mike Trout- because the Phillies are not just "one piece away"- And to be fair, that's true in each case. None of those three would make the Phillies a contender to win the World Series in 2017. Of course, if you do nothing to upgrade your club, you're never going to be just one piece away either.

You could simply wait out the 2017 season, and hope that your young talent arrives. Maybe J.P. Crawford is in Philadelphia and excelling by year's end. Maybe Aaron Nola gets health and grows into a solid #2. Maybe Roman Quinn surprises you. Maybe, maybe, and maybe. After those things, you might be just one player away. You might be ready to go get your Bryce Harper. I don't know, but I do know that leaves a lot to chance.

The last great era of Philadelphia Phillies baseball, the one that is highlighted by the 2008 parade down Broad Street, was kick-started by signing Jim Thome and trading for Kevin Millwood, even though the Phillies were not really a contender in 2002. Those moves themselves didn't win the Phillies a title, but they brought interest back, putting people in the seats, and revenue in the team. The result of that was a team that dominated the NL East for years to come. Washington kick-started their current run by getting Jayson Werth after 2010, when they were bad. Jon Lester didn't sign with a championship Cubs team, but he signed, and they became one. There is an up-front cost to being good. There is an attitude about being good. Spending the off-season in the corner, left out of the serious business is not how you get good.

So, my hope is that the Phillies surprise us in the next week. Another upgrade in the line-up, some trades, and a closer would shake up the paralysis of losing right now at Citizens Bank Park. With the new CBA in place, and the TV contract money beginning to flow, there's no reason the Phillies can't proceed on trying to improve now- if they want to.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Why We Didn't Win (Or At Least Some Reasons)- Part 4










Trump's Carrier Deal a Loser for America

This should come as no shock to anyone- Donald Trump is celebrating an achievement of his own creating today. He's been talking about a Carrier plant in Indiana that was going to ship jobs to Mexico for a while now, and he promised to intervene to save the jobs. He has done so, sort of, and now he's actually flown to Indiana to toot his own horn. Of course the compliant press is covering it as a win, too.

This deal is a loser for everybody though, particularly the American people. First off, it's crony-capitalism at it's worst. In exchange for Carrier keeping 1,000 jobs there, out of the 2,000 that were in danger, they are getting $7 million over the next ten years. Break that out, and it's $700 a job, per year, for the next decade. Is it breaking the bank? No, but it is taking revenue away from the state. United Technologies Corporation, the parent company of Carrier, certainly doesn't need $7 million in tax breaks. Go look up their revenue.

Second off, while we should all be happy for the people at that factory who get to keep their jobs, it's important to note that you would have to do a job deal like this every day for a couple of decades to match the kind of job savings you got from the much-maligned auto-bailout of 2009. You can't piece-meal your way through the micro-economy to stem manufacturing job losses. This is not an economic strategy for a nation the size of our's.

The third problem is the awful precedent this just set moving forward. Literally every manufacturer in America is looking at this and wondering if the simple threat of going to Mexico could land them a grab-bag of goodies from the Trump Administration, and the thing is, they are probably right. Trump has made this such a part of his political identity that he has to do it. Even more so though, he has to also lower taxes, as he promised that to his cronies. He has set up a dangerous system, where threats like this are rewarded. It's either extortion or bribery, you take your pick.

The fourth and maybe scariest thing is the way leverage was probably used in this deal. United Technologies Corporation is a major defense contractor. They simply couldn't afford to risk those contracts, and i'm sure the Transition team knew that. Welcome to the era of open thug government. That this factory happened to be in Indiana, where Vice-President-elect Mike Pence is still governor, probably made this even worse yet. Sure, LBJ did this, and frankly most of us support that he did. Donald Trump is no LBJ. Lord only knows what kind of sick, twisted threats he'll make.

Here's the last, and maybe most important part to remember amidst Trump's chest-pounding today- the workers aren't really winning either. Sure, 1,000 of them keep their jobs, for now. At least several hundred, if not an actual 1,000, will lose their jobs in the coming weeks. Those that keep their jobs will probably see some changes to their compensation in the coming months (since that's not being mentioned anywhere). Still others will see their jobs disappear in the future, either when the company finds a loophole to make more money without this deal, or when the deal runs out. Many will lose their jobs now. All will probably see changes to their compensation. None of them receive any real security.

Keep your eye on the prize here. Trump has laid bare his economic principles. Yes, he does want to keep manufacturing jobs here, which is good, but it's the tip of the iceberg. He wants to cut taxes, and cutting these types of deals and using compliant state legislatures is easy for him. He also believes wages are too high, and he'll probably cut them with this deal. You can't stop globalization just by hunting around for individual cases of job losses and trying to fix them, which is essentially what Trump's strategy is. He's setting a false narrative, where it's not about enforcing regulation on trade partners, and it's not about automation, because it's convenient for him. This is a loser for the rest of us.

Why We Didn't Win (Or At Least Some Reasons)- Part 3










Understanding MLB's New Collective Bargaining Agreement

Major League Baseball and their players agreed to a new CBA last night that will insure labor peace in the sport through 2021. With this deal, baseball will have gone a quarter century without a strike, something that would have been unthinkable in the 1990's. The economics of the game are going to see some changes though, most of which will favor the smaller market teams.

The players did not manage to get rid of draft pick compensation for teams that lose a free agent whom they made a qualifying offer to, as it was said they hoped to. In general, teams will get a third round pick in exchange for a player they offered the qualifying offer to, if they leave. If a team is over the luxury tax and signs a player who received a qualifying offer, they will lose a second and fifth round pick. In other words, if the Yankees or Dodgers sign your free agent away (since they are often times in the luxury tax penalty), they will pay a higher price than if the Athletics do. This is fairly substantial. Losing one third round pick may not be considered as harsh of a penalty as the old system prescribed for taking another team's player. On the other hand, if the big markets take from you, they give up a price that is equivalent to potentially the next Jimmy Rollins (a second rounder for the Phillies) and Ryan Howard (a fifth rounder for the Phillies). That hurts most clubs, but there is one more catch- the contract the player signs with his new club has to be $50 million or more. So the number of players this will apply to will be diminished.

While the owners did not get the international draft that they wanted, they did curtail international signings from being as expensive. If you are in the top 15 revenue teams, you will have $5 million to spend on international free agents. If you are in the bottom 15 teams, you will have $6 million to spend on international free agents. Most Cuban baseball players will count towards these numbers, unless they have six years experience and reached 25 years old. The winners in this deal are those from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan- they have no cap.

In both of these cases, I wouldn't call these "losses" for the players, but they weren't victories either. The rosters were not expanded to 26, which is a loss for the MLBPA, since it means less members. Even so, the players didn't do so bad- there were no changes to their guaranteed contracts.

One of the unintended (we think?) consequences of the CBA will be more trade deadline action. With compensation for losing a free agent normally only being a third round pick, more teams will consider trading away their players approaching free agency, as they can probably get a better deal on the market, and won't make the calculation that a first or second round pick is better compensation than a fair package.

The season will now start in the middle of the week moving forward, not on a Monday. This means the season will run a few days longer, though no games were added or subtracted from the 162 game schedule. MLB wants to have regular season games outside of the United States and Canada, and needed a few more days built into the schedule in order to do that, while complying with standards of rest days built into the CBA. Look for an MLB regular season series in London or Mexico City in 2018.

Smokeless tobacco is a loser in the new CBA. Current players are grandfathered in, and will be allowed to chew, but moving forward, smokeless tobacco is banned on the field. In other words, you'll never again see a Lenny Dykstra wad of chewing tobacco spit out onto an outfield.

The All-Star Game will no longer matter for the World Series either, thank goodness. The game will have a pool of money attached to it for the winning team, but at least a last place team's lone All-Star can't decide which league gets home field advantage. For what it's worth, that will go to the best record between the two teams who win their league titles.

In general, this deal is good competitive balance, and not so good for large markets buying good teams. The Yankees will still be able to deduct the construction costs on their relatively new stadium for a few years, reducing their payments to MLB. Even so, stricter luxury tax rules and caps on international spending tend to favor the Milwaukees of the world, more than the Bostons. With that said, the Athletics are in a position to actually lose competitive balance money, and now desperately need a stadium.

The new CBA shouldn't dramatically alter the MLB landscape, based on what's been released. It is a significant development though in that it insures labor peace for a few more years, stretching past a quarter century. It's impact on my Phillies should be relatively small (given that they begin the agreement with a much lower payroll than we're used to), but could matter a lot to the team later in the agreement, when they should be competitive. In the immediate though, it means the Winter Meetings are on for next week, free agency can now proceed with certainty, and we'll have a season beginning in April.

Why We Didn't Win (Or At Least Some Reasons)- Part 2


















I Suck At Small Talk

What's your favorite food?

I have no f**king clue, if you ask me this same question in eight hours, my answer is going to change, you moron. Right now it's a cheesesteak, tomorrow it's seafood, the next day it's Chinese, then fried chicken, then Mexican.... *sight*

I can't do it. I really can't do it. You want to talk tax policy? I'm game. You want to talk about the new CBA governing Major League Baseball? I'm game. You want to talk about the importance of the U.S. Government continuing to fund NASA? I'm game. You want to shoot the shit about some basic human, every day function? No, not me.

What's your favorite movie?

You're kidding me, right? "Pulp Fiction." Or maybe it's "Goodfellas". Scratch that, it's the "Return of the Jedi." No, that's too nerdy, "Braveheart" is totally me. Nah, i'm into laughing, give me "Beavis and Butt-Head do America." No, that's too risque, actually "Avatar" is totally deep enough for me. No, wait, I wanted "Hurt Locker" to win. Eh, you know what, the Joker in "Dark Knight" was pretty awesome.

Who doesn't have a favorite movie? Who doesn't have a favorite genre? How about the same guy that loves everything except for Rom-Com's basically, and who think "Law and Order SVU" is the only show on TV.

I'm just a terrible human being. No, really. I can't possibly be a human being, I don't even know what my favorite food is.

In short, if you just need to take up some down time with mindless conversation- I'm the worst. Move along.

Why We Didn't Win (Or At Least Some Reasons)- Part 1