陇山陇西郡
宁静纯我心 感得事物人 写朴实清新. 闲书闲话养闲心,闲笔闲写记闲人;人生无虞懂珍惜，以沫相濡字字真。
正文
lesser of two evils: if you want to vote, you gotta decide. So, all personal attack from Trump is distracting as we know what characters they're. Both are "pay for play" - superb in trading/exchanging for money, power, favor, fame - all up on sale, fair play, well known. Don't claim either side got a better human being - you don't. You may shout out loud: That's evil ! but what can you do? Ha? lesser of two evils ! You have no choice. man !
Then what? What's wrong with that? It's well known fact. When old Bush's President, his sons did those "conflict of interest" trading to acquire money and fame and power - even now they're doing it. Donald Trump, publically said he paid for access to politicians. Trump's so creepy that he just attacked himself - pay for play. Cut the crap! Trump got boggled down to details - his policy narratives, specific milestones with time table and measurable matrix.
Being a dirty businessman, Trump can't claim "innocent" "pure" or "clean." Dirt digging, you can't go any where! You can't be cleaner than Clintons. Trump just wastes our time by attacking the same old Clintons stuff, so old that it's stinct to Trump himself - digging feces shows he's so low, so cheap, so deep, so desperate, that he can't come up with something noble, fresh, creative. Sad ! Sadden, bloody sad! I thought he can do better than digging dirt - he disappointed us so bad that we can't side with him, not quite there yet ! He needs to work harder than what he shouts attacks of full force - disguisting!
5) Patch to blacks/latinos in white community audience - absurd.
6) didn't release his tax return - without showing his tax return, no matter what Trump says, useless. (creepy) cover your own before attacking
7) Scare tactics. (dictator style)
He gotta construct and conjure up hope, how, specifically, he can lead to be better! Cut off the bullsxxx attacks - can't go any where, can't move anyone ! Dumping dirt is bad for everyone ! So sick of those same things again, again, and again.
As for voters, we want to ask "what's in it for me?" "Can you deliver what you promise to me?" For those fans for either: Don't add your own interpretation of wishfu thinking - you're dumped as you're too blind, too die-hard, to ignore his or her flaws. Wake up!
For Trump, he got something for me, but he gotta come up with specifics how to deliver those promises for me. Where is his plan? No. He doesn't do that. Heared his rally, I'm so sick of his "sloganeering" "yelling" "attacking" - none of these with any plans to get what I want from him. No vote!
"choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." God bless America!
lesser of two evils: if you want to vote, you gotta decide. So, all personal attack from Trump is distracting as we know what characters they're. Both are "pay for play" - superb in trading for money, power, favor, fame - all up on sale, fair play, well known. (That's evil, but what can you do? Ha? lesser of two evils ! You have no choice. man !
Then what? Donald Trump, publically said he paid for access to politicians. Trump's so creepy that he just attacked himself - pay for play. What's wrong with that? It's well known fact. When old Bush's President, his sons did those "conflict of interest" trading to acquire money and fame and power - even now they're doing it.
Being a dirty businessman, Trump can't claim "innocent" "pure" or "clean." Dirt digging, you can't go any where! You can't be cleaner than Clintons. Trump jsut wasts our time by attacking the same old Clintons stuff, so old that it's stinct to Trump himself - digging feces shows he's so low, so cheap, so deep, that he can't come up with something noble. Sad ! I thought he can do better than digging dirt.
As for voters, we want to ask "what's in it for me?"
For Trump, he got something for me, but he gotta come up with specifics how to deliver those promises for me. Where is his plan? No. He doesn't do that. Heared his rally, I'm so sick of his "sloganeering" "yelling" "attacking" - none of these with any plans to get what I want from him. No vote!
~~
~~
| See realtime coverage |
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton is sidestepping new questions about nearly 15,000 recently discovered emails or her family's charitable foundation - a stay-the-course strategy sure to be tested in the sprint to Election Day.
|
There are a lot of Republicans who are not exactly enthusiastic about their party's nominee. A recent Gallup poll found that only 46 percent of Republicans are happy with Trump; 52 percent wished the party had nominated someone else for the presidency.
看看川普的政策团队 美国人和中国人都别再对他抱幻想文章来源: 网易 于 - 新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
打印本新闻 (被阅读 15039 次)
 随着十一月逐渐临近，两党候选人的政策措施逐渐明晰。作为建制派候选人，克林顿的施政理念和具体政策措施早已为人们所熟知；而“大嘴”特朗普早期的竞选基本是放嘴炮，其政策理念和具体措施随着近日一系列政策团队的出炉才逐渐明朗——就是个灾难。
很少有人会让华尔街金融巨头和自己的大金主组成自己的政策团队，但特朗普就是这么干的。 进入到八月，特朗普分两批公布了自己的经济政策智囊团。8月5日，特朗普公布了第一批由14名白人男性组成的经济咨询委员会（economic advisory council）。这一团队中包括负责为Trump竞选总统筹款的Steven Mnuchin，两个共和党背景的经济专家Dan Kowalski和David Malpass，九个华尔街的金融、地产巨头，和在加州大学尔湾分校任教的Peter Navarro。抛开背景不说，单一性别、单一人种的委员会组成首先成为了众矢之的。似乎是对外界强烈不满的一个回应，Trump随后在8月12日公布了8名女性智囊和1名男性智囊：大部分成员仍集中在华尔街，只有一个宪法学者Betsy McCaughey和两个来自德州公共政策基金会的专家Brookes Rollins和Kathleen White。特朗普的经济智囊团的选择已经说明了他在经济政策上采取的立场。 首先说说这批经济政策智囊背景。事实上，特朗普的经济政策智囊们，恰恰是他的大金主。Cerberus资本的首席执行官Steven Feinberg就是其中之一：他为特朗普和共和党的联合筹款账户Trump Victory贡献了33万9400美元，他的妻子也贡献了同样数额的捐款。而Beal Bank的董事长Andy Beal则通过捐款44万9400美元为自己谋得一席之地：这一数额是特朗普的筹款账户在法律范围内所能接受的最大单笔捐款。除此之外，Beal在2015年还为特朗普的超级政治行动委员会the Make America Great Again捐赠了10万美元。Beal和特朗普的另一个超级政治行动委员会the Great America也有公开关联，但捐款金额不明。 第二批增加的女性“经济顾问”们一样是大金主的背景。比如Carla Sands，帮特朗普筹备了南加州的筹款活动，筹款规模也是上百万。Diane Hendricks更直接，是特朗普筹款账户Trump Victory的副主席。同样的还有第二批经济顾问中的Liz Uihlein——她和她的丈夫都是特朗普的支持者，她本人也是特朗普超级政治行动委员会的副主席。 反观之前的总统竞选者，很少有人会让华尔街金融巨头和自己的大金主组成自己的政策团队。奥巴马2008年竞选时的经济政策团队包括芝加哥大学经济学教授Austan Goolsbee、美国顶尖智库布鲁金斯学会的研究员Jason Furman、哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院的教授Jeffrey Liebman、哈佛大学经济学教授David Cutler、乔治城大学经济学教授Daniel Tarullo等人，无一不是深谙相关政策的专家。共和党2012年的总统候选人罗姆尼的经济政策团队更是包括大名鼎鼎的经济学家曼昆和顶尖智库美国企业研究院的研究员Kevin Hassett，也有异曲同工的意味。 特朗普团队中唯一的经济学教授是坚定的反华派，但这位教授声称没见过特朗普。 当然，有的人会说，特朗普公布的第一批经济团队中好歹有一个（唯一一个）经济学教授Peter Navarro。那我们就来聊聊这个Navarro。Navarro是哈佛大学毕业的经济学博士，现在任教于加州大学尔湾分校。作为著名的反全球化斗士，Navarro长期以来认为“中美关系尤其是经贸往来于美国有害”，曾著有《Death by China（死于中国之手）》一书并将其拍成电影，渲染中美贸易对美国的损害。 一个受过正规学术训练的政治学者写文章时可以有情绪，但对于学术著作的评价，应该相对审慎、专业。在《Death by China》的第一章，Peter Navarro一开头就为读者描绘了一个“骇人听闻”的所谓“现状”：中国出口到全球的产品“杀人于无形”，要么致癌、要么易燃、要么有毒、要么致命；儿童首饰都含铅、玩具都易燃；中国出口到美国的药品不是救人而是杀人；如果你“又饿又想死”（原文为“if you're both hungry and suicidal”），你就去吃中国进口的鱼、水果、蔬菜，里面还有各种各样被禁的抗生素、腐败的细菌、重金属或者是不合法的杀虫剂（详见Navarro, Peter. Death by China, PearsonEducation, New Jersey, 2011）。 Peter Navarro说的问题中国有吗？有。污染、不合格产品、假货确实是中国无法回避的问题。但是情况像Navarro描述的这么严重吗？显然不是。作为一个接受过正规教育的经济学学者，Navarro能把一本“non-fiction”的严肃类读物写出科幻的味道，通过毫无严谨性的夸张描写误导读者，简直是“前无古人，后无来者”：纵观全书，缺少像样的实地调查、缺少经济学理论支撑、缺少系统的数据分析和事实分析，只是在堆砌各种有关中国的“骇人听闻”的新闻，择其恶者用以支持、渲染其中国威胁论的观点。 这样一个从逻辑到结论都透着荒谬的所谓“经济学家”，居然是特朗普经济顾问团队中唯一的学院派——可以想见，如果特朗普执政，中美关系将会走向何方。唯一值得庆幸的是，Navarro并非特朗普的嫡系，甚至连靠边站的资格都没有：Navarro本人也承认，二者从未见面，甚至都没有电话交流——“(Navarro) has never met Trump in person. And asfor speaking with him by phone, he acknowledges, “I have never had thepleasure.” 与其说Navarro是特朗普的顾问，不如说特朗普需要一个在经济学领域有一定名声的坚定反华派为自己站台，和自己满嘴跑火车的经济、外交政策产生“共鸣”。 特朗普的经济政策概括成两个关键词，就是“减税”和“保护主义”。 一群华尔街的金融家和地产商外加严重反华倾向的学者组成了特朗普的经济顾问团队，特朗普的经济政策也好不到哪去。 特朗普的经济政策概括成两个关键词，就是“减税”和“保护主义”。在税收方面，特朗普在底特律的演讲中公布了里根以来最大规模的减税计划，放弃之前主张的四档税率，向共和党的三档税率靠拢，将富人阶层的最高个人所得税从现有的40%降至33%，将企业收入税从35%降至15%，通过降低税率为企业减负。在贸易层面，特朗普强调“保护主义”和“美国至上”，一方面反对TPP（跨太平洋伙伴协议）和NAFTA（北美自贸协议），甚至威胁退出WTO；另一方面，特朗普宣称要把美国人失去的就业机会夺回来，不惜与中国展开贸易战。 乍一看上去，特朗普的经济政策完全回应了长期以来美国工薪阶层的诉求：去全球化、美国至上、保护主义。但是这样的经济政策能解决问题吗？首先，减税将使美国的联邦收入大幅下降，财政将面临更严重的亏空。以破产的方式强行进行债务重组，也会给实体经济带来巨大的损害。其次，虽然贸易保护主义乃至民族主义听上去非常美妙，但贸易壁垒更重要的意义在于其给国际贸易带来的巨大的不确定性。对不确定性和潜在的中美关税战、贸易战的预期将迫使跨国企业做出规避风险的举动，这不仅将影响到中美两国自身的经济，更会给全球经济金融带来深远的、负面的影响。 当前在G-0世界的大环境下，欧美传统强国都在收缩，英国脱欧就是最好的证明。在这样的大背景下，美国作为世界第一大国采取保护主义的经济政策外加上特朗普本人“独裁”式的作风，其一旦上台，将大大加剧美国经济和贸易政策的不确定性。对商业信心的摧毁将是特朗普能给美国经济带来最大的伤害。 除此之外，贸易的繁荣以及经济的增长取决于良好的地缘环境。中国长期以来的“韬光养晦”和“通过外交创造良好的周边环境为经济增长服务”并不是一拍脑门子想出来的，而是有其根深蒂固的地缘政治脉络。在这样的前提下，特朗普全面收缩的外交政策，不仅将放任地缘威胁肆意滋长，更将加剧部分地区紧张局势，从而影响到美国的整体地缘政治环境。在这样的大背景下，美国经济不可能独善其身。 接下来会发生什么？ 近日一个甚嚣尘上的说法是，共和党可能会放弃特朗普。这绝不是空穴来风——一方面，共和党建制派的领袖和党内初选时的一些候选人早就公开宣布不会支持特朗普，特朗普在全国大会后针对阵亡将士家庭的表态也激怒了许多共和党人，其起初宣布不支持众议院议长Paul Ryan和参议院资深共和党议员John McCain竞选连任更是使很多支持他的共和党人寒心；另一方面，国会共和党议员要想连任首先要考虑的不是与特朗普同进退，而是照顾到自己选区选民的诉求，这也使得他们选择和特朗普“保持距离”。 最重要的是，特朗普根本就不是一个共和党候选人——共和党虽然不见得反对特朗普成为总统，但到现在可以明确的是，特朗普上台绝对不会全盘接受共和党的政治纲领。 如很多分析指出的一样，本次大选更为重要的意义在于“三管齐下”——在最高法院大法官Scalia去世空出一个位置后，现任总统奥巴马提名的Garland在共和党多数的国会一直未获通过，原因就在于共和党希望通过大选一举拿下白宫和国会，从而再一锤定音、选一个保守派大法官，扭转最高法院的“乾坤”，让保守派在接下来相当长的一段时间决定美国的司法走势。 然而随着特朗普四处“作死”、民调急转直下，共和党面临的是两个选择：一者，继续和特朗普捆绑，一荣俱荣、一损俱损，但最后的结果很可能是鸡飞蛋打、赔了夫人又折兵，总统、国会都保不住，最高法院自然也就失守了。另一个选择就是“壮士断腕”、及时止损，及时和特朗普切断一切关系，将共和党的重心转移到国会选举，争取确保国会多数，哪怕克林顿上台，也可以通过对国会的控制来实现本党的政治意图。对于共和党而言，后者显然是更为理性的选择。 当然，这个决定并不好做：一来，共和党高层做出这个决定无异于大嘴巴子抡圆了往自己脸上抽，打脸打得不忍直视；二来，这种出尔反尔的决定会不会招致剧烈反弹仍然是一个未知数。但是如果考虑到绑定特朗普的情况下可能失去总统、失去国会多数进而失去对最高法院法官提名的控制，这个牺牲对于共和党建制派而言甚至不是可能，而是必须。而随着选举日逐渐临近，共和党内部则需要尽快做出决定了。 |
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
That's the key lesson from former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino, who is on a rampage against conservative poll truthers who are foolishly insisting that polls that show Donald Trump losing must be bogus.
"Making excuses for the numbers will not change them," Perino wrote. "It would be a disservice to the candidate and his supporters to say otherwise."
Many of us learned this lesson in 2012, when so many Republicans insisted polls were "skewed" against Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, the lessons of 2008 have clouded the issue, because Republicans and conservatives misunderstood the basis of Barack Obama's sweeping victory. That led to serious miscalculations on the right in 2012, and myths that continue to this day.
Republicans viewed Obama's victory in 2008 as a triumph of mass marketing, rally-based campaigning, and no small amount of media manipulation. They saw the Obama campaign's forays into social media strictly as vehicles for national messaging. In 2012, the Mitt Romney campaign oriented its efforts along the same lines, while insisting that polling was biased based on turnout models that favored Democrats. Pundits on the right followed suit with "unskewing" efforts that showed Romney leading in alternate turnout models.
What this missed was the ground organization put together by the man Republicans derided as the "community organizer in chief." The 2008 campaign used social media not merely as a channel for national messaging, but to identify potential supporters in neighborhoods in every key swing area. They turned these people into ambassadors, learned how national issues played in each community, and skillfully tailored messaging and issue priorities to build emotional bonds with these voters. The prodigious fundraising of Barack Obama allowed his team to build a vast peer-to-peer model of voter engagement for exactly that purpose.
Those emotional bonds — plus a deep investment in get-out-the-vote resources — produced a significantly new turnout model in the 2008 presidential election. Four years later, even with President Obama enjoying much less popularity than before, the same campaign apparatus easily reconnected those emotional ties to people who saw their 2008 vote as a personal commitment that defined who they are. That drove the turnout model in Obama's favor; despite a lower overall turnout, the demographics turned out to be remarkably similar to 2008.
Republicans lost a winnable presidential election in 2012 because they learned the wrong lessons in 2008. Unfortunately, the myth of rallies being more reliable than polls still has not faded. Donald Trump's rallies are far more impressive than Hillary Clinton's. Clinton is also stomping Trump in nearly every important poll. Both of these things are true. Only when Republicans accept this can they hope to beat Clinton.
And remember: Poor polling in August isn't the end of the world. The general election campaign still has another 11 weeks to go, and both candidates have low likability numbers and are vulnerable to emerging negative narratives. Polling isn't an exact science, either, as the 2014 midterm cycle proved when polls seriously underestimated Republican strength in gubernatorial and Senate races. This weekend, the encyclopedic Michael Barone noted some irregularities between "key state" polling and national numbers that might suggest that the latter may be missing some Trump strength. Voter registration numbers in swing states show momentum and could still change in Republicans' favor.
So what's the lesson? Remain focused on evidence rather than anecdotes. Gain a proper understanding of how that evidence played out in the recent past. Perino is correct, although it might be better put by quoting The Who: "We won't get fooled again." If we do allow ourselves to get fooled into thinking that rallies are indicative of turnout and support, well … meet the old boss, same as the new boss.
神砍之二：美国的大选
已有 90 次阅读 2016-8-24 15:25 |系统分类:海外观察 推荐到群组
美国大选，跌宕起伏。一个谁也不了解的特朗普，居然就成了共和党推举总统候选人。而且，在开始阶段，民调显示，他比民主党的总统候选人希拉里还要领先。现在情况又出现了变化，因为特郎普的口无遮拦，他的民调数字开始落后了，据说比希拉里落后10个百分点，达到了两位数。
美国总统选举历来猫儿匿不少。2000年，小布什与戈尔竞争，从投票的总票数来看，明显戈尔领先。但因为所谓选举人的制度，最后戈尔还是落败。关键是那个弗吉尼亚州投票的诡异。
这次，特郎普刚一出头，舆论大哗。因为没人知道他是谁。而且作为商人，他与美国培养系统所培育出来的精英们明显不同。他不单信口开河，而且东一榔头，西一棒子，精英阶层根本不知道他想干什么。其实精英们也不傻。精英们知道，特朗普跟他们不是一伙儿的。特朗普的所作所为肯定与精英们有点不一样，虽然未必大相径庭，但也差别不小。
特朗普的观点得到美国社会中白人下层劳动者的欢迎。这么多年来，美国工业制造业严重萎缩，白人下层劳动者失业严重，收入下降。他们对精英阶层的政策非常不满。所以特朗普的政策有点类似于美国早年的孤立主义政策，即不管或者少管美国以外的闲事，什么欧洲的、中东的、亚洲的，所有这些闲事都跟美国没什么关系，美国根本没必要操这份闲心。美国主要是应该把国内的经济搞好，让就业率和老百姓的收入不断提高就行了。
估计特朗普也是看到了这部分选民的诉求，所以他才认为他出来竞选是有希望获胜的。当然，作为商人，他自己是不是真的为这部分低收入者的利益考虑，那是另外的问题。但至少他可以拿这样的情况说事，能拿到不少的选票。
但是美国垄断资本，是国际垄断资产阶级的代表。他们可不是这样想的。美国垄断资产阶级要从全球化的进程中获取更多更大的利润，这才是最关键的。美国垄断资产阶级与是国际金融资产阶级的代表。搞金融来钱多快呀，谁还那么费劲巴拉地弄什么制造业，再把制造出来的商品拼命推销出去，再从其中赚那么一点辛苦钱。这太麻烦了。而搞金融，坐在电脑前，手指头噼呖叭啦一动，就万事大吉了。成千上万的银子哗哗地往华尔街流动过来，那是多爽的一件事啊。
而希拉里，就是国际垄断资产阶级的精英培育系统培养起来的职业政客。她熟悉国际垄断资产阶级的想法和利益，她也熟悉整个体系动作的那一套。所以美国大资产阶级一定要也一定会支持希拉里。虽然希拉里的“邮件门”弄得她有点灰头土脸，但在大资产阶级的支持下，这点小麻烦算得了什么。虽然美国选民很重视总统候选人的诚实程度，可是在大资产阶级的金钱拼命向媒体上砸下去的过程中，普通选民也不会再把什么“邮件门”当成什么不可饶恕的过错。现在，美国大资产阶级不光向媒体砸钱，更少不了为希拉里的竞选宣传与公关砸钱。这份金钱攻势，估计特朗普有点顶不住。所以到了十一月大选的那一天，特朗普不是输得很难看就算不错了。
当然，事情也不是绝对的。虽然现在看来，特朗普的胜算不太高，但并不是完全没有。美国的大资产阶级也不是铁板一块，有些利益集团是希望特朗普获胜的。所以最后鹿死谁手现在还不能最后判定。不过，有一点也是可以确实的。即使特朗普战胜了希拉里，上台当上了美国总统，他在竞选时的那些言论，其实有很大一部分就可能不算数了。因为在美国大资产阶级的压力与利诱之下，特朗普是不可能为所欲为的。他不可能严重脱离垄断资产阶级的利益而独来独往。他的屈服和妥协几乎是完全可以肯定的了。
尽管现在看起来特朗普的形势不是太妙，但别忘了，美国的共和党和民主党不过是美国垄断资产阶级的左右手。右手干得累了，换左手干。左手干累了，再换右手。多年来的美国政治不过就是如此。特朗普即使当上了美国总统，他再想怎么兴风作浪，也不过是如来佛掌中的孙猴子，逃不过如来的手掌心。
不难设想，如果希拉里获胜，那就什么也不必说了。如果特朗普获胜，那么特朗普可能会有某些方面有点微小的调整，但在总的方面，既不可能把美军基地从日本撤出来，也不可能在南海问题上跟中国握手言和。奥巴马时期的很多政策都会在特朗普手里继承下来。所以，从本质上说，特朗普当总统与希拉里当总统没有本质的不同。
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自胡懋仁科学网博客。
链接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-678176-998519.html