For a democratic socialist party #Vote4Corbyn #JezWeCan pic.twitter.com/XzFvuylftI
— Tajinder (@JaM99percent) August 23, 2015With the Houston Astros threatening to turn the American League West race into a rout, this is probably as good a time as any to assess the Angels’ situation.Keep reading.
Spoiler alert: It’s not a good one.
After Saturday’s 15-3 shellacking by the Toronto Blue Jays, the defending division champions trail Houston by 4 1/2 games, their biggest deficit since July 3. And with Texas beating Detroit earlier in the day, the Angels aren’t even in position to claim a wild-card playoff berth since the Rangers have passed them in both the division standings and in the battle for the second and final consolation invitation to the postseason.
And that left fuses a little short in the Angels dugout. After giving up two hits in a scoreless -- and largely meaningless -- ninth inning, reliever Huston Street lit his, screaming at everything and everyone in the Angel dugout.
“I hate losing. I hate losing like this,” Street said after regaining his composure. ”Sometimes you just have to get in people’s . . . .
“This is frustrating. There needs to be a sense of urgency. Guys need to feel that. And I wanted people to at least hear or feel it. Because it’s time.”
That’s what one brutal month can do to your season -- and your closer’s temper. On July 23, the Angels woke up with a two-game division lead and a record that was 14 games over .500.
On Sunday they woke up in third place for the first time since June, tied for the fewest wins in the league this month and fading faster than Chris Christie’s presidential hopes.
“I’ll be concerned when we’re eliminated,” Street said. “That doesn’t change the fact that you get mad. We’re better than what we’re playing. We’re making silly mistakes, silly errors, silly decisions with the baseball.
“We’re a better baseball team than this. You have to hate to lose. It’s sickening really.”
Saturday’s game was a good CliffsNotes version of how things have gone lately for the Angels, who have endured three separate three-game losing streaks in August.
On the mound, they had rookie left-hander Andrew Heaney, arguably their best starter since the All-Star break. He lasted just 3 1/3 innings, the shortest start of his Angel career.
On one pitch in the third inning to Josh Donaldson, Heaney gave up more runs -- three -- than he had surrendered in nine of his previous 10 starts. And by the time he left the game one out into Toronto’s seven-run fourth inning, he had been tagged for a career-worst eight runs.
That helped the Blue Jays take a 10-0 lead before the Angels had their second hit. Toronto would go on to set season highs for runs and hits (20). If the game had been a title fight, the referee would have stopped it. Not only have Angels been defenseless lately, giving up 32 runs in their last three games, but they’ve been punchless this month as well: Their .213/.272/.344 slashline is the worst in baseball in August.
Manager Mike Scioscia tried to shake the team from its lethargy by shaking up his batting order, moving Kole Calhoun, Mike Trout and Albert Pujols up one place each and batting David Murphy (seven home runs, 34 runs batted in) cleanup.
But Scioscia admitted it would take more than that to turn around the team.
“We need to just take this one step at a time and get simple with a lot of the things we’re doing. And hopefully get back into our game,” he said.
In the command centers of Republican presidential campaigns, aides have drawn comfort from the belief that Donald J. Trump’s dominance in the polls is a political summer fling, like Herman Cain in 2011 — an unsustainable boomlet dependent on megawatt celebrity, narrow appeal and unreliable surveys of Americans with a spotty record of actually voting in primaries.I've placed the key paragraph above in bold.
A growing body of evidence suggests that may be wishful thinking.
A review of public polling, extensive interviews with a host of his supporters in two states and a new private survey that tracks voting records all point to the conclusion that Mr. Trump has built a broad, demographically and ideologically diverse coalition, constructed around personality, not substance, that bridges demographic and political divides. In doing so, he has effectively insulated himself from the consequences of startling statements that might instantly doom rival candidates.
In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting.
The unusual character of Mr. Trump’s coalition by no means guarantees his campaign will survive until next year’s primaries, let alone beyond. The diversity of his coalition could even be its undoing, if his previous support for liberal policies and donations to Democrats, for example, undermine his support among conservatives. And in the end, the polling suggests, Mr. Trump will run into a wall: Most Republicans do not support his candidacy and seem unlikely ever to do so. Even now, more say they definitely would not vote for him than say they support him.
But the breadth of Mr. Trump’s coalition is surprising at a time of religious, ideological and geographic divisions in the Republican Party. It suggests he has the potential to outdo the flash-in-the-pan candidacies that roiled the last few Republican nominating contests. And it hints at the problem facing his competitors and the growing pressure on them to confront him, as several, like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, are starting to do.
His support is not tethered to a single issue or sentiment: immigration, economic anxiety or an anti-establishment mood. Those factors may have created conditions for his candidacy to thrive, but his personality, celebrity and boldness, not merely his populism and policy stances, have let him take advantage of them.
Tellingly, when asked to explain support for Mr. Trump in their own words, voters of varying backgrounds used much the same language, calling him “ballsy” and saying they admired that he “tells it like it is” and relished how he “isn’t politically correct.”
Trumpism, the data and interviews suggest, is an attitude, not an ideology.
For voters like Jan Mannarino, a 65-year-old retired teacher who drove an hour from her home in Green Oak Township, Mich., to see Mr. Trump this month, his defiance of political norms is his single greatest virtue.
“Even if he doesn’t win, he’s teaching other politicians to stop being politicians,” Ms. Mannarino said. “He comes on strong. He could say it gently. But I think no one would listen.”
When people talk about the qualities Mr. Trump would bring to the White House, they describe the raging, merciless executive who fired people for sport on television. Some mention trips to his golf courses, which they admiringly note are impeccably run. A common refrain: “He’s a person who gets things done.”
That he has no experience in government is not a liability, many say, but rather one of the main reasons they want him in Washington.
Washington (CNN)After a brief bump into positive territory, disapproval of President Barack Obama is on the rise amid dismal reviews of his work on several foreign policy issues and a sense that his policies would lead the country in the wrong direction.
According to a new CNN/ORC Poll, Obama's disapproval rating has inched above 50%, with 51% now saying they disapprove of how he's handling the presidency and 47% approving.
That's a negative shift since late-July, when 49% approved and 47% disapproved. Majorities also disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy and foreign affairs, as 52% say the policies Obama has proposed would move the country in the wrong direction.
Assessing Obama's handling of several issues, the President fares worst on his handling of ISIS, the Islamic militant group that controls some areas of Iraq and Syria, with 62% disapproving of how the President is dealing with the group. Nearly as many, 60% say they disapprove of his management of the U.S. relationship with Iran.
On both issues, Obama earns notably higher disapproval ratings among Democrats than he does on other issues: 35% disapprove of his handling of ISIS, 30% Iran. His next highest disapproval rating among Democrats is 23% on his handling of foreign affairs generally.
Amid pessimism that either Obama or the GOP leadership in Congress could move the nation in the right direction, a majority say the country is already headed in the wrong one. Asked how things are going in the country today, 52% say badly, suggesting the negative shift that emerged in a May CNN/ORC poll has continued.
Increasing disapproval toward Obama is largely due to a worsening of already-bad ratings among Republicans. In July, 82% of Republicans disapproved, that rose to 89% in the new poll, while among Democrats and independents, his approval rating has held steady (85% of Democrats approve now, 84% in July, while 42% of independents approved in both polls).
Obama's recently renewed push to close the U.S.-run detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, meets with majority opposition: 53% say the prison should remain open, while 44% think it should be closed with prisoners transferred to other facilities. That's more support for closing the prison now compared with 2010, when 39% said it should be closed, but less than existed as Obama was about to take office in 2009, 51% backed closing the facility in January of that year.
As Republican contenders for the presidency raise the idea of sending ground troops to fight ISIS, the public leans slightly against the idea, with just more than half opposed. Overall, 47% favor sending U.S. ground troops into combat operations against ISIS forces in Iraq or Syria, 51% oppose it. Still, most think it is likely that it will ultimately happen, with 75% saying it is very or somewhat likely that U.S. ground troops will eventually enter combat operations against ISIS, up slightly from 70% saying so in May...
One woman earned several offers after handing her resumé out on the street http://t.co/a7lDMawpNz pic.twitter.com/1D9qX0MyS5
— People magazine (@people) August 23, 2015
Joe Biden games out presidential run with circle of advisers http://t.co/8c6ivflXmd Hillary's on the rocks. Vultures circling. #OhHillNo
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) August 23, 2015Historical context is a great asset. But is history always an accurate guide? Does past performance always give us the best predictor of future outcomes?Keep reading.
This election season provides a fascinating frame to see if the polarization in politics, from Washington to the states to the public, is no different than what we have seen in the past; if the angry populism evident especially on the right but also to some degree on the left, is no different from the populism that has emerged following every economic setback; if the surge for an insurgent, non-establishment candidate that has always petered out well before the primary process is over will follow the same arc; if the Republican Party will once again flirt with outside-the-box candidates before settling on an establishment figure; if the fact that every major-party convention since 1952 has been over before a ballot is cast will hold true again. Or, perhaps, if this time might be different.
Almost all the commentary from the political-pundit class has insisted that history will repeat itself. That the Trump phenomenon is just like the Herman Cain phenomenon four years ago, or many others before it; that early enthusiasm for a candidate, like the early surge of support for Rudy Giuliani in 2008, is no predictor of long-term success; and that the usual winnowing-out process for candidates will be repeated this time, if on a slightly different timetable, given 17 GOP candidates.
Of course, they may be entirely right. Or not entirely; after all, the stories and commentaries over the past two months saying Trump has peaked, Trumpmania is over, this horrific comment or that is the death knell for Trump, have been embarrassingly wrong. But Trump’s staying power notwithstanding, there are strong reasons to respect history and resist the urge to believe that everything is different now.
Still, I am more skeptical of the usual historical skepticism than I have been in a long time. A part of my skepticism flows from my decades inside the belly of the congressional beast. I have seen the Republican Party go from being a center-right party, with a solid minority of true centrists, to a right-right party, with a dwindling share of center-rightists, to a right-radical party, with no centrists in the House and a handful in the Senate. There is a party center that two decades ago would have been considered the bedrock right, and a new right that is off the old charts. And I have seen a GOP Congress in which the establishment, itself very conservative, has lost the battle to co-opt the Tea Party radicals, and itself has been largely co-opted or, at minimum, cowed by them.
As the congressional party has transformed, so has the activist component of the party outside Washington. In state legislatures, state party apparatuses, and state party platforms, there are regular statements or positions that make the most extreme lawmakers in Washington seem mild.
Egged on by talk radio, cable news, right-wing blogs, and social media, the activist voters who make up the primary and caucus electorates have become angrier and angrier, not just at the Kenyan Socialist president but also at their own leaders. Promised that Obamacare would be repealed, the government would be radically reduced, immigration would be halted, and illegals punished, they see themselves as euchred and scorned by politicians of all stripes, especially on their own side of the aisle.
Of course, this phenomenon is not new in 2015. It was there in 1964, building over decades in which insurgent conservative forces led by Robert Taft were repeatedly thwarted by moderates like Tom Dewey and Wendell Wilkie, until they prevailed behind the banner of Barry Goldwater. It was present in 1976, when insurgent conservative Ronald Reagan almost knocked off Gerald Ford before prevailing in 1980 (and then governing more as a pragmatist than an ideologue). It built to 1994, when Newt Gingrich led a huge class of insurgents to victory in mid-term elections, but then they had to accept pragmatist-establishment leader Bob Dole as their presidential candidate in 1996. And while John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 were establishment figures, each had to veer sharply to the radical right side to win nominations; McCain, facing a possible revolt at his nominating convention if he went with his first choice for running mate, Joe Lieberman, instead bowed to the new right and picked Sarah Palin.
So is anything really different this time? I think so...
