.
In 2012, after Obama beat Romney, James wrote a political piece that included this good-natured chide:
.
Post-Election and Sportscasters
In a basketball game, if one team jumps off to a 20-11 lead and holds the lead until late in the game, the broadcast color man in most cases—19 times out of 20—will spend most of the game browbeating everything that the trailing team does. They can be trailing 83-78 with two minutes to play, and the announcer will still be dogging them: They have no energy, their offense is out of sync, they’re not taking care of the ball, they’re not blocking out on rebounds, etc., etc. If it’s 41-38 at halftime, the halftime analysis will score about 70-15—an endless series of criticisms of the team which has, in truth, merely missed one three-pointer or failed to defend one.
What the Republicans are going through now is the same thing: an endless loop of greatly exaggerated criticisms of everything they have done—they’ve disrespected women, they’ve forgotten the middle class, they’ve sold out to Wall Street, they’ve alienated Latinos, they have presented no vision for the future, etc., etc. Guys, it was 64-60. Knock it off.
.
Yeah, I think it's worth remembering that American elections are close. This is good. James follows on the point that it is good:
.
In modern American politics, the two parties split most elections almost 50-50—so much so that a 64-60 vote is considered a rout. Political commentators will talk about how remarkably evenly split the American electorate is.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the electorate being evenly split. It results from political parties adopting positions that maximize their coverage. The Republicans may want to ban abortion entirely (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections. The Democrats may wish to legalize infanticide (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections. If either side adopts a radical position, they lose elections, lose power, and have to adapt their position.
The Republicans may wish to devote 70% of the federal budget to military spending; the Democrats may wish to cut it to 5%. If either side pushes too hard, they lose elections, and have to adapt. The positions taken by each side on every issue are constantly adjusted and adapted to form a compromise between the extreme positions and the center of the country—hence, elections in a two-party system are always pushed near to the 50-50 balance point.
One would think this was obvious, but believe me, I watch a LOT of political analysis, and 90% of the political analysts don’t have a clue that this is what is happening.
.
Baseball teams shift their 8 fielders around like the pseudopodia of an amoeba, trying to capture 71% of the field rather than 70%. Similarly, the RNC and DNC slide their positions and sound bites around so as to retain 48% vs 47% on the Day Before. Donald Trump is, of course, a pretty extreme defensive shift :- )
I saw one comments thread where a liberal man was, very sincerely I thought, BEGGING somebody to tell him ANYTHING that would appeal to a rational person about Donald Trump. (On BJOL most of the readers consider him a "whimsical" candidate.)
Another reader replied, drolly, with a truncated list like this:
Wall
Anti-PC
Pro-business
Pro-military
Tough negotiator
Stands up to media
Pro-America
And, Dr. D thought to himself, what is so Platypusal about Donald Trump other than his veneer? Certainly the guy has flaws; personally, I do not like Donald Trump. He's one of the last people in the world I'd go to dinner with. Also, his lack of Presidentiality makes me sigh deeply at the thought of him holding George Washington's job.
But isn't that what Republicans have pleaded for, these past two decades? For any politician who won't Play Ball with the lobbyists and PC media? Well, this is the kind of "whimsical" approach it's going to take, to be heard through the MSM monolith.
When Trump blew off the Megyn Kelly debate,* it was preposterous --- > when viewed through the lens that the media has given us. Walking away, when you don't like the terms, is not preposterous in terms of the way Trump negotiates deals. The very next day, he got offers from Cruz, Rubio and Fox News for lucrative debates under better terms.
.
To Hillary's critics, her private hard drive for Secretary of State-level secrets is the quintessential Clintons. Yes, we do things back channel, and no, you can't see what they are. If Susie Mainstreet wants to believe that the U.S. government is a bigger version of the local P.T.A., that's great. Susie can keep driving to soccer while we get our hands dirty that hers might stay clean.
The New York Times defends the Clintons as doing what government does. I think the NYT has its issues, but this has traction. Whatever fearful things go on in the U.S. Government, we are not talking Rafael Trujillo or Saddam Hussein here. Like James says, it's a closer ballgame than the commentators make it sound.
Which is why some of these people fight so desperately. In the NBA, a single three-pointer will swing the game.
Respectfully,
Jeff
