Leor’s Sports Takes: Sox make a good sale for Chris Sale

My guest blogger: My son Leor Shugerman Handelsman, 15-year old Shugerblog Sports Correspondent on the Red Sox moves this week:

This Monday, the Boston Red Sox made a blockbuster deal, trading away future stud, Yoan Moncada, along with two other prospects, while receiving one of the best pitchers in the league, Chris Sale. The Red Sox organization used this trade to make one big statement: The Red Sox are are willing to do whatever it takes to win a ring in the next couple of years.

Ever since March 12th, 2015, when the Red Sox signed Yoan Moncada, Boston baseball fans had high hopes for the up and coming superstar. The 19 year Old Cuban infielder was ranked as a top-15 prospect by four different sites at the time of the signing, but since then, Yoan Moncada has climbed up the ranks to arguably be the number one prospect in baseball.

According to MLB.com, in an article written in 2012, the top ten prospects in the league were the following: 1. Jurickson Profar 2. Dylan Bundy 3. Wil Myers 4. Taijuan Walker 5. Trevor Bauer 6. Zach Wheeler 7. Gerrit Cole 8. Danny Hultzen 9. Tyler Skaggs 10. Nick Castellanos. Most of those players all turned out to be busts, and none of them lived out to their hype (so far). In baseball there is no guarantee that the top prospects will make it, and that does not exclude Moncada.

On the other side of the deal, Chris Sale will instantly help out our already very good rotation, without a doubt. The 27 year old has been an all star for each of the last five years, and has an extremely high floor, with little risk. In his seven year career, Sale has a 3.00 ERA, and batters have a .224 batting average against him. He also has an incredibly low salary, and is on contract for the next five years, which is a huge plus.

When it comes down to the decision on if the Red Sox did the right thing to pull the trigger on this trade, the real question is, “Is Moncada worth the risk of either becoming one of the best players in baseball, or busting like the 2012 class of bums?” My answer is no, he’s not. There is no guarantee that Moncada can boost our shot at winning it all, while Sale will make difference the second he steps onto the field. Papi’s retirement shouldn’t send us into rebuild mode. We still have many valuable assets like Bogaerts, Betts, and Bradley that can lead us to a championship, and thanks to Dave Dombrowski, we can add Chris Sale to that list of assets.

On the same day that we traded for Sale, we also signed designated hitter Mitch Moreland, and traded for former Brewers closer, Tyler Thornburg. Thornburg had a huge breakout season last year as a closer in Milwaukee. But Since the Red Sox already have Craig Kimbrel, the best reliever in the game, I imagine that they will use Thornburg as a set up man. Boston experimented with a lot of guys to set up Kimbrel last year, (for example: Koji, Abad, Ziegler, Tazawa, and Ross) but none of them ended up working out as a long term answer. Only time will tell how well Thornburg will fit into the Red Sox system, but he has the talent to make a difference. There was a big question about who will replace Ortiz at DH this year, and it seems like Mitch Moreland will answer that question. Moreland’s .233 batting average last year was not ideal at all, but I can’t really complain about his 22 home runs or his gold glove award. (Even though that award isn’t a huge deal for first basemen). His numbers weren’t great, but he looks to me like he could fit the role of Mike Napoli in our 2013 run. Both Moreland and Thornburg’s contracts expire at the end of the year, but they both look like solid short term pickups. I am very excited to see Chris Sale in a Red Sox uniform, and am even more excited for the 2017 baseball season. In conclusion, I feel very lucky to be a Boston sports fan right now.

— Leor Shugerman Handelsman

The winner-take-all state rules for the electoral college are unconstitutional…

…and we should press this argument now.

Larry Lessig makes the argument here, relaying the legal foundation by lawyer Jerry Sims and professors Chris Duquette and David Schultz. I’ll discuss below. I started writing this post yesterday, but last night, a Republican elector from Texas announced he would be voting against Trump, and this morning, there is a wave of interest in the Electoral College saving the republic this morning. It is magical thinking. Yes, the Electoral College was designed originally as a deliberative body to debate the qualifications of presidential candidates.  Hamilton in Federalist #68 wrote that electors should be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Hamilton wanted the electors to guard against foreign influences and unqualified candidates. He imagined that a national election and the Electoral College would safeguard against our current crisis: “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.”

Alas, the problem is that politics have changed since 1787. Hamilton was writing at a time before political parties, at a time when state allegiances were more powerful than other allegiances. It was far more likely that states would nominate “favorite sons,” or maybe there would be a mix of four or five regional candidates, and no one candidate would be close to a majority. They did not have the time or the technology for run-off elections, but they could have a deliberative body debate and choose, and if they failed to reach a majority, the House was the next deliberative back-up.

The rise of the party system with Washington and Hamilton vs. Jefferson and Madison (and Burr) has not only made it to Broadway, but it also made Hamilton’s mechanism largely irrelevant. We don’t use the state vote as the initial selection and the Electoral College as the run-off stage. In almost every election since 1796, the parties have primaries to narrow down the race to two major candidates, and the national election is the “run-off,” so to speak. And even more relevant for our current moment, the parties control the Electoral College in a way Hamilton did not foresee. The parties choose mostly state and local officials, because the Constitution forbids the selection of federal officials.  In 2016, the state parties chose their loyalists to serve as electors, and the Republican Party has sold out completely to Trump. It turns out that most of the opposition to Trump in the GOP primary and in the midst of his various scandals this fall was driven by a fear of losing to Clinton, rather than a commitment to principles. Now that Trump won, they fear political backlash or worse from his hardcore anti-establishment base. These are not random Republican citizens; these are mostly ambitious mid-level politicians who depend upon party machines to keep rising up the state ranks into higher office. That’s why the party chose them. Trump remains popular among Republican voters. Betraying them would end any Republican political career. Exhibit A: Ted Cruz selling his soul once the winds shifted.

There is renewed hope today that 37 Republican electors will collude with Democratic electors to choose a different Republican like Kasich, Romney, or Bloomberg. Nonsense. The first problem is that such Trump-skeptic electors have resigned, rather than use their power. One such “NeverTrump” elector from Georgia resigned in August, and another from Texas resigned last week. Let me be clear: They are political cowards. Rather than stand up for their principles as electors, they are running away to save their moral purity or save their political careers, and let someone else do the dirty work of electing Trump.

The second problem is that all of these electors — 37 Republicans and 232 Democrats — would have to coordinate and decide on a single replacement in 13 days. The Electoral College meets on Dec. 19th. If they don’t hit the magic number of 270, the election goes to the House, which undoubtedly will pick Trump. Even if 37 Republican electors oppose Trump, could they ever agree on a moderate? Some of them oppose Trump for deeply religious right-wing fundamentalist reasons. They are not likely to find the Mormon Romney or the pro-choice, pro-gay Bloomberg to be worth the fight. On the other side, many Democratic electors are ideological purists, too. Some were chosen because they were Bernie loyalists, and there was a chaotic compromise this summer between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns over the slate of electors. That’s why two Washington electors from the Bernie camp openly threatened in October to vote for Trump rather than Clinton. I have a hard time seeing those two (or others) agree so quickly to vote for a free-trader, a pro-lifer, or pro-war Republican. Also, keep in mind that many states penalize such defections from the state majority winner with fines. Are both Republican electors or Democratic electors going to risk such fines for a cause that is very likely going to fall short of the goal? If you are going to aim for the king, you better not miss.

Third, it is important to remember the history is more complicated than the story that Hamilton told in the Federalist Papers for a New York audience. There was a less favorable story behind closed doors. The Electoral College was designed to protect state power, regional power, and geographic breadth. The Electoral College incorporated a protection for slavery: the 3/5ths compromise, Akhil Amar argues. In the Constitutional Convention, the South won a huge concession: for the apportionment of the House by population, each slave would be counted as 3/5ths of a white person, even though they couldn’t vote. Ostensibly, the idea was the members of Congress should represent not only voters, but all residents, including slaves (and women and children). In reality, the 3/5ths compromise was a bonus for slave states’ power. If the presidency were elected only by voters, the South would lose this bonus. The way to preserve the 3/5ths slave bonus vote over the Presidency was to tie the vote to Congressional representation state by state, rather than to tie the vote to actual voters. The Electoral College system gave slave states their 3/5ths slave bonus. Today, the Electoral College continues to give the former Confederacy and other smaller rural states a bonus.

That brings us back to Larry Lessig and the basic unfairness of the Electoral College. His opening observation has been around for a while: the Electoral College violates the principle of “one person, one vote.” For example, a voter in Wyoming has three times the power over the presidency as the average American, and four times the power of a Californian. Slate put together a map that shows the disparities in electoral college power state by state. (This is because of the Senate: The Electoral College gives one vote to each state per Congressperson PLUS two for each Senator.)  The Senate, of course, violates the same principle, but that design was explicitly part of the original constitutional compromise, so the courts have not applied this implicit constitutional rule to the explicit Senate design.

Some argue that the Electoral College was part of the original constitutional compromise, and if the Senate imbalance is constitutional regardless of the inequality, so is the Electoral College. The question here is not the Electoral College itself, but the winner-take-all system that creates the significant imbalance of apportionment. If the states adopted a rule giving their electors to the national vote winner, the equal protection problem disappears. And if the states adopted a proportional split by popular vote, again, the equal protection problem disappears. (South Dakota’s and Montana’s votes get split 2-1, an equitable apportionment, and California’s get split around 36 to 19, too, reflecting Clinton’s 62-31 win. Michigan would split 8-8, Virginia 7-6. States could avoid third party fracturing by giving electors only to candidates receiving over 5% or 10% of the state popular vote). Under this system, votes for president would no longer be diluted.

There is no rule in the Constitution for how states must allocate their electoral votes. In the early republic, some states assigned electors through the legislature, not the voters. Today, Maine and Nebraska assign one elector per congressional district. All of the other states have adopted winner-take-all allocation rules through state legislation. This rule was not part of the original Constitution at all.

Thus, this political choice is much more comparable to how states draw congressional districts, and the Equal Protection clause does apply to such state-based actions. Once upon a time, states drew districts with far fewer people in rural districts, to give rural voters far more power than urban voters.  The Warren Court found such systems unconstitutional in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims in the 1960s. The worst of those state ratios were bigger than the four-to-one and three-to-one malapportionment ratios in the Electoral College, but Reynolds v. Sims suggested that even a two-to-one malapportionment would violate equal protection. The Electoral College subjects the majority of Americans to a vote dilution of at least two-to-one. Here is my favorite passage of Reynolds v. Sims:

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State’s voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable.”

See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562-563, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964) (emphasis added).

Another major step in the argument is noting that the Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, applied equal protection to the presidential voting system in Bush v. Gore. I love how Lessig, Sims, Duquette, and Schultz  build on canonical precedents like Reynolds v. Sims as well as more poetic justice precedents (Bush v. Gore). I was skeptical when I saw this headline, but I think I’m persuaded, and it’s a test to see if Kennedy should be taken literally and seriously in the Bush v. Gore equal protection decision.

Is it too late to stop this electoral college meeting? Yes. We can’t get a court to intervene before Dec. 19th, and the fear of creating chaos would prevent any court from intervening now. But it’s not too late to stop the next violation of equal protection in 2020. This argument is solid. The question is whether five Justices would find it persuasive. Why not try?

*For what it’s worth, I like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But it has it’s own problems. It’s an interesting solution for the Electoral College relying on state legislation instead on a  constitutional amendment. States pass legislation committing their electors to the national vote winner once enough other states have passed similar legislation to reach 270 electoral votes altogether. Great idea, right? The problem is that we are still dealing with human electors, and they can play the #HamiltonElector game or partisan elector game, too. Let’s say California, New York, Texas, Alabama, and a handful of other states pass such legislation, and together, they get to the winning threshold of 270 to make the rules effective. Then, let’s say Hillary Clinton wins the national popular vote, but Trump wins Texas by 10 points (that’s what happened this year) and Alabama by 30 points. Are we relying on Texas Democrats or Alabama Democrats to stick with Clinton over Trump?  Wouldn’t a few Southern Democrats have a lot to gain by voting for the vastly more popular candidate? Conversely, if Trump won the national vote, Republicans in California would have been lobbied to vote for Clinton. The same problem applies to the proportionate system discussed above, but a campaign can put their most reliable electors at the top of their lists, so the national vote winner is less likely to have defections.


“It’s Culture and Race, Stupid!”

To paraphrase Carville, “It’s culture/race, stupid!”  This article, drawing from an astute anonymous Tweet, shows that swing-state voters who prioritized the economy (the largest concern among voters) voted for Clinton. She also won “foreign policy” voters. But Trump dominated among voters focused on terrorism and immigration. These patterns holds in the Rust Belt. This article bolsters the case that Trump won thanks to cultural/racial/nationalist issues, and by how similar anxieties were framed and perceived differently. I note that Clinton’s margin on economics was still too small (51-43?). And I’m worried that Trump is inheriting Obama’s strong economy and will either destroy it and/or take credit for it — so he might close the gap with economic voters while holding on to his xenophobic voters. If Trump keeps getting extorted by companies threatening to move, we’ll have a triple-whammy of corporate welfare, increasing interest rates, and Trump getting credit for short-term and short-sighted job protection.

Hindsight is 20/20. The Clinton campaign had good reasons for its rally scheduling

I’ve seen a lot of posts over the past month bemoaning Clinton’s failure to take the Rust Belt seriously with more visits and ad spending. Heck, I wrote one of those posts. I even called it political malpractice for failing to visit Wisconsin (at all) and Michigan (until the last week).

But here’s an argument on the other side that I have not yet seen in this debate: the more salient risk at the time was Clinton’s health and fatigue. The only time in the campaign when Trump had pulled even was immediately after her collapse and pneumonia revelations after Sept. 11. That episode coincided with the first sudden drop in her support in the campaign after she had taken a commanding lead after the conventions. (The simultaneous “basket of deplorables” frenzy drove her numbers down, but the illness was salient for a week as she was resting and unable to address the “basket case” or shift the debate, so the illness was a double-whammy).

First: The point is that in real time, the Clinton campaign had to weigh the risks of overscheduling and exhaustion and relapse vs. recuperation and being focused and balanced in the three debates. At the time, there was a much bigger risk of another bout of illness or a gaffe or some hint of a lack of energy in the debates, rather than the uncertain local effect of a campaign rally in Milwaukee or Detroit or Johnstown, PA.  The research shows that a local campaign event has a short term impact on polls that steadily dissipates over a week or two.  But the effect of a bad debate could have been disastrous. Moreoever, the Trump campaign and the Fake News Network had been planting stories that Clinton had a serious illness (Parkinson’s? Cancer? Yes, even possession by demons, a story I had seen on the interwebs). Even if the lunatic right did not need evidence, the concern was that another fainting spell or collapse could raise enough concerns among swing voters, many of whom had underlying doubts about a woman being able to handle this job.

Second: the polling data, internal and external, showed Clinton with a steady lead in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania through September and October. Meanwhile, other swing states had early voting (Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, etc.).  The data show that campaign rallies have limited and diminishing impact in states far before election day, but they have more immediate impact when early voting is already happening. The campaign committed its most limited resource (the candidate’s time and health) to the early vote swing states, where it would have immediate impact, rather than other swing states with diminishing impact. Keep in mind that at the time, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina looked far more competitive.

Third: my worry was about an October surprise, like a terror attack or a power grid attack on Philadelphia or Milwaukee (shutting down election day electronic voting). I didn’t foresee the Comey inside job. It turns out that an October surprise did swing the election, and it was worth a shot at trying to limit its damage. If you’re worried about October surprises, you need to bank as much early voting as possible. So I agree with the campaign focusing on the early vote, rather than just on securing the Blue Wall months or weeks out from election day. Let’s be a little more generous and a little less second-guessing.


Ann Coulter is right…

When I find myself agreeing with Ann Coulter, the world really is upside down. Coulter tweeted: “Medicare IS NOT WHAT THE ELECTION WAS FOUGHT OVER. If Ryan wants to change Medicare, then run for president on that & see how far you get.” We are going to win this fight over Medicare. Here’s a meme I can support (that’s ObamaCare enemy Tom Price, Trump’s HHS secretary-nominee):