Photo from the Los Angeles Times Essential PoliticsPost Election Symposium
By Leadfoot
Last night, Bella and I had the privilege
(see what I did there?) of attending the Los Angeles Times Essential PoliticsPost Election Symposium. I got an email inviting all subscribers to attend, and
immediately ordered tickets. It was good I acted quickly, because the event was
sold out within 5 minutes. Apparently we all need post election therapy here in
L.A.
So I busted Bella out of school early, and
we drove downtown. She missed last period, which is social studies. I figured
this event would be more educational anyway.
First up was Jill
Darling, survey director of the Center for Economic
and Social Research at
the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. That is a very long
title that just means she conducted the poll that the LA Times printed before
the election – the only major newspaper poll that predicted a Trump win.
Since the USC Dornsife/Los
Angeles Times Presidential Election Daybreak Poll debuted in July, people on social media had asked “what is up
with that LA Times poll though?” because it predicted Trump
winning the election by 3 points. It was so different from the other polls,
that observers thought the LA Times had to be wrong. Now the pollsters look
like geniuses. So how did they do it? Darling said they “caught the wave of
secret Trump voters” by not using the telephone. They went into communities in
the swing states and set up panels, which they used to get to know people. They
formed relationships and built trust, meeting face to face with the same people
each week. While respondents might lie to a faceless pollster on the phone,
they tell the truth to someone they know and trust.
Darling was asked why the rest of us were
so duped. She responded that “people were looking at predictor models, not
scientifically sound poll results.” Everyone was looking at sites such as the
New York Times and Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com, which told us the
percentage chance that Hillary would win, so we felt confident. For example,
Nate Silver showed Trump had a 30% chance of winning, so we all thought that
meant he would lose. But if someone told us we had a 30% chance of having a
major earthquake, we would take that much more seriously. That still means that
3 times out of 10, there is a path to victory (or your house falling down). The
lesson is – do not rely so heavily on the predictor model.
Next up was a panel of political
strategists, including:
n Bill Burton, deputy White House Press Secretary during President
Obama’s first term
n Bill Carrick, a Democratic consultant who previously worked for
Diane Feinstein and advised Loretta Sanchez’s Senate campaign
n Tim Clark, Republican consultant and the Trump campaign’s California
director
n Sean Clegg, former deputy mayor of LA, and consultant for Senator-elect Kamala Harris
n Mickey Kantor, a former
Commerce secretary under President Bill Clinton
n Rob Stutzman, who used to
work in former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, on the Romney campaign, and was a loud voice in the Never Trump
movement
First, they were asked why everyone in the
world of politics and the media predicted the outcome so incorrectly.
Tim Clark said that “people started to
believe the media line that Trump didn’t have a ground game. We knew we were
going to win. We knew we had North Carolina and Florida won. Our campaign was
built on metrics, data and a strong ground game. The press corps and the
Clinton campaign began to believe the media hype.” The Trump campaign decided
to just keep quiet and not tip their hand.
Protests in Los Angeles against Donald Trump
Next they were asked if a different
Democratic candidate would have changed the outcome.
Bill Burton responded, “There was a lot of
anger out there. I don’t know that some other candidate could have won this
race on the democratic side. Trump just did too good of a job appealing to the
angry white people without college degrees in the rust belt. The Dems needed
more white people (to vote) and I don’t think any candidate would have
attracted them.”
Other panelists noted that “Make America
Great Again” was an economic message, and “Stronger Together” was not.
Americans wanted an economic message during this election cycle. Instead, the
Clinton team made their campaign about Trump -- his failures as a human, and as
a candidate. They needed to focus much more on how to improve the lives of
people feeling economic pain. “We need an economic message that appeals to
people who make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year. We completely missed that
group of voters,” said Mickey Kantor.
Loretta Gonzalez from the AFL-CIO chimed in
to note, “We overlooked why Bernie appealed to people in the Rust Belt. He had
a great message on trade and unions that appealed to those in the blue collar
labor force. The DNC cast his messages aside, and that was a mistake.
The Sanders movement was real! Those were
passionate supporters. In retrospect, Hillary should have made him the VP
candidate. And his message must not be ignored going forward. The youth has a
very strong BS meter and they didn’t trust Hillary. They thought Democrats
should never support trade agreements that don’t protect the workers.”
Kantor agreed and said that “Michael
Dukakis carried Iowa by 12 points in 1988 and Hillary lost it! She just did not
appeal to rural communities at all.” The
Clinton campaign spent more money in OH and PA than any presidential candidate
in history. It simply didn’t matter. The message was wrong.
Trump spent far less money than any candidate
in recent history, and that fact appealed to his base. He was the first truly
independent candidate to ever win the presidency.
That said, if you look at the Senate
candidates’ vote counts, people who voted for the GOP Senate candidates
outweighed those who voted for Trump in FL, NC and OH. So the Republican voters
weren’t entirely buying what Trump was selling. Many didn’t vote for him, but
did vote for Portman, Rubio, etc. He is still the least popular candidate to
ever win the presidency.
Photo from the Los Angeles Times Essential PoliticsPost Election Symposium
Clark implored the audience to understand
that “We need true leadership – someone who talks to the American people in
plain language and walks them through the plans in a way they can understand.
They need to hear specifically how we are going to improve education, and how
we are going to create jobs.” The crowd grew restless and it was clear that
most disagreed that Trump had walked them through anything specific. But the
point was taken that Hillary’s message went over most voters’ heads.
Rob Stutsman did not vote for Trump because
he “had grave concerns about a campaign that was run on denigrating women,
minorities and the disabled.”
When asked if Trump will abandon the
inflammatory rhetoric of the campaign once in office, even the two Republicans on
the panel admitted that “Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions are a bad sign.” Kantor
said “Bannon is not a person who is worthy of working in the West Wing.”
Kantor also said that Trump gave so many
mixed messages that nobody has any idea what is actually going to happen. “Buy
your popcorn and get in the seats, because this is going to be a wild show!”
At one point Clark said that when his wife
gets together with her “lady friends” -- and all the women in the room started
booing, and he didn’t even get to finish the sentence. Apparently misogyny is
contagious among GOP officials.
Once he was allowed to speak again, Clark
said the GOP was united, and is always united. They get together to support
their candidate. He doesn’t know which way the Dems will go moving forward.
“Will the Progressives or the Centrists lead the party in the next 4 years? And
how do they get them all to come together and support the same candidate?” he
asked. It was a rhetorical question, or at least one that nobody had the answer
to, so we moved on.
Finally, the panel discussed California.
One strategist said that “California is now the center of the Progressive
universe. We have a unified Progressive government that is committed to
protecting Californians from anything Trump might do.”
The issue is that our values here in
California are at odds with fiscal responsibility. For example, we support
immigrant rights, but that position is very expensive to us. We have to come to
terms with that reality at some point. “That’s one of the reasons we put
marijuana on the ballot. We want those tax dollars!” exclaimed Gonzales.
Photo from the Los Angeles Times Essential PoliticsPost Election Symposium
The strategist panel was excused and the
mayoral panel was brought out. Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, kind of
made me fall in love with him. He spoke with enthusiasm and passion (after just
getting off a 16-hour flight from Qatar, where he was discussing the city’s
Olympic bid), had on a very hip suit and shoes, and his answers were inspiring!
He’s pretty easy on the eyes too. Remember his name. He has a future in the
Democratic party! The other mayor was Kevin Faulconer, mayor of San Diego, who is a Republican.
The first question was about Trump’s
promise to cut off funding to sanctuary cities.
Mayor Garcetti responded, “The LAPD’s job
is to keep citizens safe and to solve crimes. We are going to focus on that
great responsibility. We cannot solve murders and rapes and other serious
crimes if we are enforcing immigration law. We are not a city that will ever
stop people and ask them to show us their papers. It’s just not ever going to
happen here.”
Mayor Faulconer answered, “In San Diego, we are building
bridges with Mexico, not walls. Literally. We just opened a pedestrian bridge
that crosses the border. We already have a fence in San Diego, we don’t need a
wall. We aren’t focusing on any of that. We are focusing on how to build a
mutually beneficial relationship with Tijuana and on creating jobs on both
sides of the border.” Hmmmm, he sure doesn’t sound like a Republican.
Garcetti went on to say that “sanctuary
cities” aren’t even a real thing. There is no definition anywhere in any
charter or legislation. Los Angeles does not consider itself as a sanctuary
city, so we don’t know how a Trump administration will affect us yet, but we
don’t think we should lose any federal funding. We will push back against any
attempt to cut us off. “Pico Union isn’t filled with terrorists, it is filled
with hard working people.” The crowd went wild. My heart was aflutter.
Faulconer
admitted he opposed Trump and wrote in Paul Ryan for
president. He did back Trump on some policy issues though. “We would like to
partner with the new administration on infrastructure. We agree that
improvements are needed. We need better water infrastructure, to plan for
autonomous vehicles, etc. However, we will fight the administration on climate
change. We passed an aggressive climate change bill in San Diego, which focuses
primarily on water recycling. In CA, climate change means wildfires and
mudslides. It is a big deal to us and we will continue to fund programs to
combat it.”
Garcetti has reached out to president elect
Trump to try to arrange a meeting. “I want to let him know that values are
important and we will never compromise on that. I left him a message to tell
him I will call him out if he says something un-American, but otherwise, let’s
get to work!” Do you think he will fit in my bag? I want to take him home. No?
Ok, well at least I have never been so proud to be an Angeleno.
Asked if Trump’s presidency could affect
LA’s bid for the Olympics, Garcetti said, “Our diversity is our greatest
strength. Los Angeles is a reflection of the world. We have the people, and the
experience. So nothing should derail our bid.” (I mean, ladies, am I right?!)
Asked about Calexit, both mayors said it is
a bad idea. Garcetti answered, “I love this country and I want to make its
political winds blow from the west.” And with that, I officially dropped my
support of Calexit.
Next up was a panel of LA Times political
reporters. Their most interesting comment was that they were shocked by
people’s reactions to Trump all over the country. They witnessed first-hand the
power of celebrity and showmanship. People reacted to him like he was a rock
star. Women tried to touch him. They screamed and fainted. Everyone took
selfies. Even the men. Trump also resembled a stand up comedian. People were
laughing as much as they were cheering. He hooked them by entertaining them.
They felt that they already knew him because he was a universal TV celebrity,
so they were comfortable with him. They liked the way he spoke to them as much
as the things he said.
On top of that, the reporters said that
many men they talked to “voted with their middle finger.” They resent college
educated liberals, whom they thing look down on them. “So many people we talked
to, didn’t care whether Trump was qualified. They just wanted to stick it to
the liberals.”
Finally, it was time for the question and
answer session. We had to write our questions on cards, and pass them to the
front. I submitted 4. Bella submitted one.
One of my questions was read first: “Do you
see any of the electors refusing to cast votes for Trump?” The political
reporters said no. “I will never say never, but I don’t see this going
anywhere. There is no incentive for other states to do it.”
Bella’s question was read next, and the
moderator said the question was from a 13-year-old (we wrote that on the card.)
She asked “Why do you think so many women voted for Trump after he showed women
such disrespect?”
The LA Times political reporters said that
women, like every other group, are not one issue voters. No female candidate
ever gets 100% of her gender to vote for her. Women, all along, had negative
views about Hillary. They were willing to overlook things that Trump said
because Hillary was paid $250,000 a pop for giving speeches to Goldman Sachs,
and that turned them off more than Trump did. His female supporters were mostly
voting against her, instead of for him.
Bella was not at all satisfied with that
answer. As we walked out of the auditorium, several people stopped to ask her
if she was the famous 13-year-old (the crowd was mostly north of 50. Bella and
I were easily the youngest people in attendance). She said yes, and then talked
to strangers about how that answer didn’t sit well with her. “Women should
frown upon anyone who disrespects other women. Even if they didn’t like
Hillary, they could have still not voted for Trump. It’s possible to leave the
President part blank!”
I beamed with pride as I scanned the room
for mayor Garcetti, but he had already left. Oh well, all in all, it was well
worth cutting school to attend the event. We both learned a lot, and felt
motivated to write letters to reporters, call our congress people, and maybe
even run for office one day.
+++
Note by Patrick:
Great post, Leadfoot, many thanks!
Also, that's how children receive "real" education. I see a bright future ahead for Bella.
