A landslide election?

I got a call from a friend in Washington who knows more about political polling than anyone in America. Here's our conversation about a possible election outcome.

Lucas Jackson/Reuters
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at a gathering of law enforcement leaders at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York on Aug. 18, 2016.

I got a call from a friend in Washington who knows more about political polling than anyone in America. He was almost breathless with excitement.

“It’s gonna be a landslide,” he said.

“In which direction?” I joked.

“Hillary’s going to win in places we haven’t won in years – Georgia, Nevada, Arizona. She’ll take the entire West, the whole East Coast. Trump is sinking like a stone.”

“So do we get the Senate back?”

“You bet.”

“Sixty votes?”

“No, but a nice majority.”

“And the House?”

“We won’t win it back, but Democrats will get 14 of the 30 they need. So still a Republican majority, but far weakened.”

“And what about the states?”

He paused. “The states?”

“Will we take back the states?”

“No. The GOP will remain in control in most states.”

“So the only part of government that will change hands is the U.S. Senate, and not even by enough to overcome a filibuster?”

“Yes,” he said, as if I had taken the air out of his balloon.

“And what about all the people who’ll be voting for Trump?”

“What about them?” he asked, cautiously.

“After Trump loses, they’ll still be out there, right?”

“Of course.”

“And they’ll be madder than hell, poisoned with Trump’s venom. They’ll be a ready-made constituency for the next demagogue.”

“Bob?” he asked.

“What?”

“Remind me never to phone you again.”

“Sorry,” I said.

This story originally appeared on Robertreich.org.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.