Crowe's sculpting demonstration coming Oct. 19

Artist Geoffrey Crowe will demonstrate sculpting techniques with clay during an appearance on the Hanover College campus, Wednesday, Oct. 19. The presentation will begin at 4 p.m. in the Center for Fine Arts, room 132.

Crowe began his formal training as a visual artist in Puerto Rico at La Liga de Arte and La Escuela de Artes Plasticas. He later moved to Ireland and, eventually, to Madison, Ind., where he lived and worked from 2008-14. He is currently based in Crestwood, Ky.

The demonstration will feature the creation of a small human figure, incorporating old-style cup-making by hand, slab construction of a square tower and, finally, the creation of a mask.

Crowe’s appearance, which will include a question-and-answer session, is open to the public free of charge.

Fall Family Tailgate set for Oct. 29

Hanover parents, family and friends are invited to attend the Fall Family Tailgate, Saturday, Oct. 29, at the Panther Athletic Complex.

The College will host four athletic events that afternoon, including the Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference's men's and women's cross country championships. The Panthers’ women’s and men’s soccer teams will face the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, while Hanover's football squad will play Defiance College in a Senior Day gridiron battle. The sporting events begin at noon.

Please bring a covered dish to share. Chili and beverages will be provided. Look for the large red tent on the northwest side of Alumni Stadium.

Sal Vulcano & Friends open Enrichment Series Oct. 28

Comedian Sal Vulcano will open the Hanover College Enrichment Series’ 2016-17 season with an Oct. 28 performance in Collier Arena.

Vulcano, perhaps best-known for his work on truTV’s hidden-camera prank show, “Impractical Jokers,” will be joined by national-touring comedians Roy Wood Jr., of The Daily Show, and Chris DiStefano. The performance will begin at 7 p.m.

General admission tickets to see Sal Vulcano & Friends cost just $10 each. Seats for children high-school age and younger (18-) are free. Tickets are available at

The Hanover Enrichment Series is presented by Tricia and Will Hagenah, with additional support from German American Bank. The series also includes appearances by Bill Nye (Nov. 18) and Michio Kaku (March 10), as well as an array of performances by the College’s theatre department and chorale and music ensembles, as well as diverse art exhibitions.

Noted climatologist Keith Mountain to speak Oct. 12

Hanover College’s Environmental Stewardship Committee will offer of presentation by renowned climatologist Keith Mountain, Wednesday, Oct. 12. The program, open to the public free of charge, will begin at 4 p.m. in the Science Center, room 137.

Mountain is a professor of geography and geosciences at the University of Louisville. He has been a member of the university’s faculty since 1994 and the department chair for the past 10 years. In addition, he has served as state geographer for the Commonwealth of Kentucky and has been appointed to Louisville’s Sustainability Commission and the Green Cities Initiative on Climate Change.

Mountain, whose specialty is glaciology and global climate change, has been part of more than 30 international expeditions to study existing glaciers and ice sheets. His research has taken place in Antarctica, Greenland, China, Tibet, Africa, Indonesia, Alaska and South America.

The focus of his efforts relates to the details of how glaciers and ice sheets interact with the Earth’s climate system and what the current global retreat of glaciers tells us about climate change, prospects for the Earth’s future climate and how humankind can expect to interact with this change.

Political science's presidential election panel discussion Oct. 20

Hanover College’s political science department will host a panel discussion about the 2016 presidential election, Thursday, Oct. 20 at 6 p.m., in room 102 of the Horner Health and Recreation Center. The discussion, which includes audience participation, is open to the public, free of charge.

The three panelists, all noted political science professors, include Indiana University’s Edward Carmines and Diana O’Brien, as well as University of Kentucky’s Richard Waterman.

Carmines is director of the Indiana’s Center on American Politics and also research director at its Center on Congress. He is a nationally recognized expert on ideology and citizen preferences. His research focuses on American politics, especially elections, public opinion and political behavior.

O’Brien, a 2006 Hanover graduate, has research and teaching interests in women and politics, representation, political parties and institutions, research methods and quantitative methodology. She has published widely on the causes and consequences of women’s access to political power, including the spring Washington Post article, “Would Clinton Really Appoint a Cabinet That's Half Women and Half Men?"

Waterman’s research specialties include the presidency, bureaucracy and public policy. He has published articles in numerous political journals, including American Political Science Review and the Journal of Politics. He is also the author or co-author of several books including “Bureaucratic Dynamics,” “Politics, Bureaucrats, and the Environment,” “The Image-Is-Everything Presidency” and “The Changing American Presidency.”

Trustees approve Hanover 2020 Clear Vision

A strategic plan, set to guide Hanover College through the next four years, was approved by the Board of Trustees at the Oct. 1 meeting. Elements of the four-goal plan will begin immediately with completion of the plan’s 21 objectives slated by 2020.

“We named the plan ‘Hanover 2020 Clear Vision’ because it is a shared vision by our faculty, staff and participating alumni, and is explicit on what we are trying to achieve,” said Hanover President Lake Lambert. “As we move forward, we do so knowing that our campus community is unified and committed to the plan’s success.”

The strategic plan’s four main goals will position the College to increase enrollment, improve student outcomes, increase alumni and community engagement and establish financial stability and economic stability. The completion and implementation of the goals will further support Hanover’s mission of lifelong inquiry, transformative learning and meaningful service.

Highlights of the plan include the following objectives:


Hanover plans to increase its total enrollment to more than 1,300 students by the fall of 2020 while increasing the diversity of its student population. To further support enrollment goals, new or renovated first-year housing will be a priority and new graduate programs will be developed.

Student Outcomes

While Hanover’s graduation and retention rates far exceed national averages, the College will strive to Increase its four-year graduation and first-year retention rates, as well as increase post-graduate success. In addition, an objective is to also ensure that 100 percent of graduates have participated in a significant experiential learning opportunity, such as travel abroad, summer research, service learning and internships.

Alumni and Community Engagement

Hanover’s connection to its alumni and local community are key to its success and longevity. The strategic plan aims to Increase the rates of alumni engagement, as measured by giving and volunteering, but also raise the rates of alumni satisfaction at intervals of one, five, and 10 years after graduation. Additional objectives include the increase of alumni-hosted internships and/or employment opportunities and increased student service and internship placements within a 60-mile radius of by the fall of 2020.

Financial Stability and Economic Sustainability

Financial stability and economic sustainability are unique challenges facing all colleges and universities, particularly liberal arts colleges. To support new initiatives, and ensure economic stability, Hanover plans to increase student revenue, raise the endowment through gifts and pledges by the fall of 2021, and meet and sustain additional goals for the Impact Hanover fund. Alternative strategies will also be developed during this period to generate additional revenue while cutting operating costs.

More than 40 member of the campus community were involved in the planning process. The final presentation was made to the Board of Trustees Oct. 1 following 12 months of discussion, research and drafting.

Hanover 2020 Clear Vision

Bicentennial Green Celebration comes to Hanover

Leaders in creating a more sustainable state will be honored as part of a Bicentennial Green Light Celebration Tuesday, Oct. 11, at Hanover College's Science Center. The event, held from 7-9 p.m., is free and open to the public.

The celebration will feature music by Paul Hassfurder, a brief background of the Sustainable Indiana 2016 project, along with the presentation of Green Light awards. It is part of a statewide bicentennial celebration of Hoosiers who are helping shape a more environmentally sustainable Indiana.

The Green Lights awards are presented by Sustainable Indiana 2016 as part of their bicentennial mission to recognize homegrown solutions to our changing climate. From local food, clean energy, connected communities, better buildings, the statewide project has been involved in telling the stories of environmental action in Indiana for a decade.

The celebration is being co-hosted by the Hanover and guests will hear from President Lambert. Attendees can arrive at 6 p.m. for a tour of the Science Center with Dr. Stan Totten, former geology professor and curator of the Science Center collections.

Eric Dodge, professor of economics and chair of the College's environmental sustainability committee, says, "As Indiana celebrates a bicentennial, it is important to recognize individuals and organizations that are doing the important work for a sustainable future. The growing pressures on our scarce resources, coupled with the uncertain impacts of climate change, will require leadership, innovation and more sustainable practices. Hanover College is pleased to host this event and to celebrate such forward-thinking in Southern Indiana."

To reserve a seat for the awards,visit

Regional college fair to feature more than 50 schools

Hanover College will host the Southeastern Indiana Regional College Fair, Thursday, Sept. 29, in the Horner Health and Recreation Center. The event, which runs from 6-7:30 p.m., is open to all high school students and parents in the surrounding counties free of charge.

The college fair will feature representatives and information from more than 50 colleges and universities.

In addition to opportunities to meet with college admissions officials, Richard Nash, Hanover’s director of financial assistance, will present two financial aid sessions. College fair attendees can choose to attend a session at 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Both will sessions be held in the Horner Center, room 102.

President Lambert's message to area community

The news that the Ku Klux Klan will hold a rally in our community has shocked and appalled the students, faculty and staff of Hanover College. The organization’s bigotry and violence have no place here, and what the KKK represents is completely counter to the values of the college and what we believe to be the values of this community.

As one of the largest employers in the region and as an institution that recruits more than 300 students to be new residents of Jefferson County every year, it is imperative to the college that our region be a welcoming and hospitable place for all people. It would be easy to ignore a few outside agitators planning a protest, but we see the upcoming event as an occasion to affirm a shared community commitment to respect, equality, kindness and justice. We must ensure that hate — under whatever mask it hides — can never be at home here.

As educators, we know that “teachable moments” can come in unlikely situations. We ask our neighbors in Jefferson County to turn this unfortunate situation into a positive lesson on the value of diversity and need for inclusivity, committing ourselves to being an even better place to live and work for all people.


Lake Lambert, Ph.D.


Garvey & Murphy discuss the presidential election

Barbara Garvey and Dan Murphy, two longtime Hanover College faculty members, recently sat down for a 45-minute discussion about the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The conversation touched on a variety of related topics, including the uniqueness of the candidates, Neil Postman's vision, gerrymandering and even forecasting the final result.

Garvey, a retired professor of communication, taught at Hanover from 1977-2013 and earned the College's Arthur and Ilene Baynham Award for Outstanding Teaching in 1987. Her areas of expertise include presidential rhetoric, political advertising, gender communication and leadership, and first ladies.

Murphy, a professor of American history, is a 1981 Hanover graduate and has taught at the College since 1988. He was the founding director of Hanover's Center for Free Inquiry and served as program director of the symposium series. His specialties include modern American history, American cultural and military history.

Their conversation follows.

Uniqueness of this Presidential Election

Dan Murphy

I think there is something to be said that this may be the most extreme case. These are the first candidates whose unfavorabilities together go over 100 percent, which is rather remarkable. I do not know if we even have data from 1972, when you are running [Richard] Nixon versus [George] McGovern, but I would be surprised, even there, in that fraught election, that you would have the same kind of numbers.

Late 19th century, you had candidates who were more party people, rather than personalities. You go 1884, Grover Cleveland had an illegitimate baby, they said, and James Blaine, who was involved in railroad shenanigans, so both were being lambasted by the other side, and probably drove there favorabilities down.

I am not sure it is anything like what we have here.

Now, we have two people who were around for so long. We have known [Donald] Trump since the 1980s and Hillary [Clinton] since, at the very least, the early 1990s.

Barbara Garvey

That is a long time.


So, the American people have been living with these folks for a long time. So, yes, some presidents come out of nowhere. Woodrow Wilson in two years, he goes from being governor of New Jersey to president. Barack Obama, who is elected to the Senate in 2006 – in 2004 he makes his famous speech – so in two years, he does the Wilson thing and he is president of the United States and nobody knew him. George W. Bush, I guess maybe people had seen him with his father, or something like that, but he is governor of Texas, which is somewhat prominent, but still, off to the side. Then the next thing you know, he is president.

We have not had anybody quite like this [Trump and Clinton].


No, I think there would be an interesting comparison with the first Bush and [Michael] Dukakis. Not the hatred towards them, but, for a long time, the American public looked at both of them like “do we want either of these people for president?”

But, this is what Hillary had hoped would happen with her [national Democratic] convention, Bush’s rise after his convention not only went up, but stayed up. And then the famous Dukakis commercials with the helmet down over his eyebrows – which he very honorably said “no that did not keep me from winning the election” – but there were just a series of things. Bad moves. Bad moves.

But, I do think, in fairness to both Trump and Clinton, [regarding] the media, it is impossible not to talk about the bad things with the media. The media have stirred up the very worst about them and, if we had the kind of media today of just 25 years ago, maybe they could have found somewhat of a better place. But, you know, it is just a disaster.

Neil Postman’s Views


I want to talk about Neil Postman.


I am a big Neil Postman guy!


Me, too! We were in the middle of such wonderful conversations and then, just presto, he passed away, it was just like overnight. But, because historians love Neil Postman, communication people loved him, English people loved him, he was the true liberal arts person. There is no doubt about it.

We brought him [Neil Postman] to campus. He made, I honestly believe, the biggest impact on campus as anybody ever did. We had a question-and-answer session in the afternoon and it was standing-room only. That night it was standing-room only.

Here is what he said. It was about 1989, roughly, when he came.


It was roughly right after “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” which was probably his masterpiece.


Yes, it is. When he talked about amusing ourselves to death, it was not about the “ha, ha, ha, ha kind of amusement.” It was that it would bring out the weakness in our whole thought process that would do a number of things, all of them bad.


What he was talking about was the problem of making our main mode of communication television.




As opposed to print. Print, by its very nature, compels logical, reasoned, orderly, linear argument. With television, it is the image. And he pointed out, a simple example he gave, that tells you could not do Shakespeare’s “King Lear” with smoke signals. It is impossible for that mode of communication to convey what is in “King Lear.” And he would point out that television, which we were increasingly turning to, is not a media that is conducive to rational and linear thought.

And he used the very, very, very famous example – I think for the election of 1984 – over and over again, Leslie Stahl at CBS wanted to do a strong, hard-hitting piece on Ronald Reagan. So she did a series of pieces on Regan during the course of a week. She really nailed him. But, while she would be standing speaking or doing the narration, they would be showing these pictures of Reagan in the rose garden, meeting veterans or greeting foreign leaders. She got a call from Michael Deaver, Reagan’s public relations guy, who said “thank you so much, Leslie.” And she said “why, I was trying to nail him.” He said “it does not matter. Thank you so much.”

The point was, they did some polling with this, Reagan’s ratings went up. People blocked out what she was saying and they just simply saw the good images of him being presidential. And that was what the medium conveyed.

So, Postman went on to talk about how speeches become shorter. Well, speeches are now boiled down to soundbites. [Abraham] Lincoln and [Stephen] Douglas would get up and debate for two hours at a pop and then rebut for two hours.


At one of them, Lincoln sent people home for dinner so they could be rested, so they could come back and listen to him for four more hours. Could you imagine that today?


Our people complain if a debate goes over an hour. We are worried that people will collapse and so forth. These guys [Lincoln and Douglas] were doing it for eight or 10 hours a day.


But it was their sport. That was the entertainment to them, like a national football league game or baseball.


It was, Postman would argue, the nature of the media had implicated this sort of appreciation of people.

Another one of his famous lines is was “you could have Lincoln come back and recite the Gettysburg Address on television” - which was very atypical of the 19th century, it was only like two minutes long – you come back, recite that, “and most of the audience would not know what he said.” Because they could no longer comprehend the grammatical structures and the words, the diction and all the rest that goes into it.


What is truth? He was still working on that at the time of his death. What has been done to truth?

Of course, he would say we went from an oral society to a printing society to the television society. And each time, the definition of truth changed. But, with technology as it is today, people feel more-certain than they have ever felt that they have the truth and anyone who disagrees with them, you are wrong. Because I have the truth.

Actually, at a time when we are more confused, we have less specific information. We have what Postman talked about as misinformation. That we live this society where, because of technology, we should know everything there is to know. But, for all kinds of reasons, we ignore most of it or get it all messed up. And then selectively pay attention to only what I like. We are trapped by incoherence, by misinformation. We adore the images that soothe us and make us happy.

If he were alive today, what I think he would be talking about the most is that we want the images that soothe our discontent by allowing us to be the most discontent. You know that sounds very convoluted, but he was worried at the time of his death that we were moving farther and farther to not saying anything good about our country, not saying anything good about politics and that we were just wanting the person who could best capture the anger. A good example is negative advertising that does not teach, but is based on anger and misinformation. In this election, there is data to suggest that, unlike the past elections where the negative ads got people to vote, this time, the negative ads may be causing people not to turn out to vote.


Substituting reasons and arguments with images. It was just at that time, in the 1980s, you had cable television taking over. Then, of course, at the end of his life, is just when the internet was moving along. What we have seen is a fragmentation of sources of information and entertainment for people.

When I was a boy, you had the three networks. If you were lucky, you lived in a big city where there would be an independent [station] or something like that. If you were really lucky, you might have four. That was it. You have a newspaper. Maybe two, or something, in your town. That was it. Everybody watched the same programs because you were only choosing from maybe three possibilities at any given time. Then you had reruns in the summer so you could catch up on the ones you did not watch. Then with cable, all of the sudden, boom. So now, when you look at a really popular television program, and if they get 10 or 15 percent of the market, that’s amazing success.


That’s considered very high.


That’s huge compared to the days when, I forget, the last episode of M-A-S-H or something would get the whole country watching it. The Lucy Show with virtually everyone in the country was watching when she gave birth. Or just any normal week. Whatever it may be, everybody shared the same things in common. We do not have that anymore. And the same thing has happened to information sources.

As Postman was saying before, alright, if I am alt-right, I have all kinds of whacky sites I can go to. If I am right, I can go to the National Review Weekly Standard. If I am left, I can go to Politico, New York Times, whatever it may be. If I am alt-left, I can go to various whacky left sites where I can find my comfort anywhere.


And I stay, I stay in my comfort.


So you have some people who think the United States is just the pit of all hell, and some other people who think it is the greatest place that is being torn down by these folks, and you have all these different narratives and it is very hard. That is one reason why it is so hard to get people to unite and work together.

Campaign Rhetoric


I want to ask you a question related to the history of rhetoric. I may be the very last person refusing to go to our last stage, which called is post-modern. I know there are lots of different definitions for post-modern. The way we use it is, basically, there is no hope for rhetoric any more. People are so self-absorbed that if your argument is not what they already believe, you cannot reach them. Well, I am hanging on. I am not there yet. I am closer than I ever thought I would be. I am not there yet.

But here is what I want to ask you. One of my favorite modern rhetoricians, came out of the 1950s. Tzedek, the Hebrew word for justice, is was what Chaïm Perelman was all about. And he said we will be okay as long as we have a universal audience. He knew the number of particular audiences was on the rise - and you can imagine if he was saying that in the 1960s and 1970s what he would think about today. We have examples of the election right now about the particular audiences. But we must have a universal audience of enough people who say there are certain standards and we will not pass those. And we understand we cannot always have things all our way and we may argue endlessly about where we are going to compromise, but it is there and it is political rhetoric that takes us there. Our political system will function as long as we have the universal audience.

What is your response about “is there still a universal audience?”


I think there is the possibility, but you are facing the fact that people have comfort zones and we have structurally made it easier for people to have comfort zones. The classic would be the way that gerrymandering - thanks to, again, computers - gerrymandering, which was always a fine art, has become even more of a fine art.


The Democrats did it in the 1960s. We think of it right now as the Republican thing that has been done, but it has always been done by our political [parties].


They missed their decade because they won at the right time. If the Democrats win in 2020, they will do it. It goes back and forth. The Obama political machine in 2012 made this sort of micro-targeting a fine art. [Senator] Rob Portman in Ohio has done a brilliant job, in what should otherwise be a tough year for Republicans in that state.


Yes, he is going to be re-elected.


He has buried his well-known opponent ...


... Who was a former governor ...


... By apparently slicing the population into 22 different groups. And going after all these 22 different groups with 22 different messages. Thereby, solidifying their base.

I think there is some hope.


It is working on both sides.


I think, if we had a leader who – we could have a whole big discussion on whether we think presidents become too much of the imperial president. The president does consummate that audience. I think Obama sort of had a chance. He was headed that way in 2008 and 2009, then he went to a different direction. He went partisan.


Some of his top critics were in his own party.


That is why he, in the end, had to emphasize the micro-targeting because he could not do a Reagan. He was going to be out of the cards.


Let me ask you this. When you have Mitch McConnell, standing up on the day of your inauguration, saying publicly, not secretly, but publicly, I have only one goal and that is to make sure this president is a one-termer.

Is it possible for Obama to have had the universal audience?


Yes. If he was willing to compromise.


But see, the Democrats would say he compromised too much.


Yes, and [Senator] Harry Reid has not been the paragon of civility.


Yes. We can keep backing down. If so and so would have been stronger. If so and so …


It has always been that way. Whomever you have. Even in the classic instances of senate-president work. A good example, we are learning more and more about the Eisenhower administration. It is one reason Eisenhower’s stock has been rising as president. This is a classic instance of a president and a senate majority leader of the opposite party, who has intense ambitions of his own, coming together to pass all sorts of important legislation.


But, going back to the gerrymandering and select groups, look at how we lost Senator [Richard] Lugar. Will the back-home groups allow their elected officials to compromise with the other side?


I do not think I would go Lugar and gerrymandering. With Lugar, you could really see it coming. He was out of touch.

The problem is that right now, for both parties, the Democrats, right at the moment, are reduced to their safest, most-left wing seats. The Republican are the same way. There is no doubt that makes it hard.

I do not think many people shed tears for him, but think of the passion of John Boehner, who was this fairly traditional – I mean he was a conservative guy. But a fairly traditional politician.


He did work somewhat with others. Yes.


Who was ready to work. In his way, capable and effective, who could do some interesting things.


I would agree with that. And he got thrown out because of his willingness to work with others.


Not the bulk of his caucus …


The small group with the biggest voices. Do you admire him? There are all these jokes right now about what he is doing in his golf cart and waving.


His perpetual tan.

The Election Stretch Run


Voter turnout, I think, is going to determine the next president. Do you agree?


That gets back to people do not like these candidates. I think this is going to be one of the most difficult campaigns to predict because you have two candidates who, in some ways, break kind of traditional modes.

You have got [Donald] Trump, who is not really a politician, and you do not know what he is going to say from day to day. It appears that more discipline and control has taken over his campaign when this woman, Kellyanne Conway, took over. He has been much more on track compared to when you think back to June and July.


And the Democrats are deeply concerned that the controlled Trump's rise in the polls cannot be stopped.


But he is still Donald Trump. Whatever you have to say about him. To some people he is great. He is not a politician, so you do not know what is going to happen.

Hillary [Clinton] has her own problems as a person and so forth. And with Hillary, whatever is going on with the health, there is this sort of build-in set of scandals. The drip, drip, drip about the emails.

You just do not know what is going to happen. Which shoe is going to drop, because there is all this baggage in both of their closets. This could be a very unpredictable election.


I would hate for my reputation to depend upon being able to predict this outcome. I predicted she would never run for the Senate. I predicted she would not run the second time for president. So I cannot tell.

But, I would say, and this goes back to what you were saying, about the lack of fitness. Actually, that has now become a physical term rather than the mental term. There is a political communication period called surfacing where the candidate begins to see if a primary run is possible. [Judith] Trent says after surfacing starts and into the primaries, the candidate tries to minimize the issues to have as little possible bothering him or her during the general election. There are two extremely important things for the candidate to accomplish before the general election - raise money, and lots of it, and that is a whole big problem – all of the money. And the other thing is “am I fit to do the job?”

Now, fit used to mean mentally fit. I wrote a small piece about this in the Hanoverian years ago when [Ross] Perot was in the mix. We had that whole election asking the question is Bill Clinton fit, is Bush fit, is Perot really fit to do this job? By my recollection, that was the first time that we were going into the polls having not decided they were fit.

Well, today, we have the other, the actual physical fitness and, of all things, not only did Trump have this goofy Willy Nelson-looking guy that wrote something about his health, he now is going on the Dr. Oz Show to say this is what my other doctor found out about me. Dr. Oz has said, well I am not going to ask him any hard questions. I am not going to ask him anything he does not want to talk about.

I think we are going into the polls just as confused about the fitness.

[Libertarian Party nominee] Gary Johnson, also, made some people question his fitness when he had to ask what was Aleppo, the center of the Syrian refugee crisis.

We are in the greatest political soap opera ever. The soap opera takes on a life of its own and is totally unpredictable. What may be next? Will Hillary overcome her defensive mode? She gave a very successful speech in North Carolina when she returned to the campaign, but in the press conference afterwards, she was back to very defensive communication when she was questioned about her health episode and what not telling Tim Kaine meant about their relationship.

Will Trump break his leash and say something that has Kellyanne Conway distraught? Is Trump, Jr., saying they cannot release tax information, because it is a document of 12,000 pages, just more on the soap opera.

Never the less, there are bad things that happen to candidates that can be controlled.

But, instead, we continue to have candidates needlessly hurting themselves – and you think, don’t they learn anything from the past; when they get with their rich donors, they get so comfortable, they are just so in love at the moment. And occasionally, and we have had classroom experience where it is going so well, and we let down our guard and it is great. But, the candidates get into so much trouble.

Obama in trying to say to the rich Californians, “well you have got to understand people in Pennsylvania and Ohio, it is bad, and so what do they do? They cling to their God and their guns.” Whoa! Terrible thing to say. Well, then [Mitt] Romney did not learn, because he gets with his rich Florida group and makes the “47 percent” comment. And then Hillary did not learn that maybe calling supporters on the other side deplorable - not the best move. Her supporters are arguing we really wanted her to do that, whatever, then people argue it is true, it is not true.

On Hardball, Chris Matthews, who was quoting Tip O’Neil, said “you never get anywhere calling the other side bad names.” I think probably, in her supporters' heart of hearts, they wish Clinton would not have said that.

So it is just not the things that you cannot control that can cause difficulty for candidates, but also the things they do to themselves.

The End Result


I am going to stick my neck out and Dan, I want you to do the same – and keep in mind I am always wrong about her – I think she [Hillary] will win. It is far from a done deal. And if she wins, I think it may be, in terms of popular vote, 0.4 percent. Just a drop. And by electoral college, maybe 20 votes.

Back when everybody was saying after her perfect convention it was going to be a blowout, I said no, it will not be.

You want to take a guess?


One Neil Postman note. Here we have a presidential candidate who is going on Dr. Oz. Bill Clinton started it on The Arsenio Hall Show.


And talking about his underwear.

Imagine George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or FDR, much less Ike …


... Thomas Jefferson! But Dan, this is not long ago. Today is different ...


… going on some show.


And being told we will not ask you any hard questions or anything you will not like!


Well, that is the way they all are.

This is the first election where we have two people who are the two oldest candidates. He [Trump} will be the oldest and she [Clinton] is slightly younger. Very close.

We were talking about people are not sure of their fitness, because both of them are up there. There is the fitness in terms of experience and so forth. Something we have not talked about it is the moral fitness.

Trump who has had an equivocal career and Hillary with her serial lying about …


Well, what about Trump and his many wives? There would have been a time that would have ruled him out. To be fair, has Trump been looked at as carefully as Hillary Clinton?


All the “Bill” [Clinton] baggage she has. Even the FBI director has said she lied about her server on multiple occasions.

So here we have the unenviable situation, that the United States, in the year of our Lord, 2016, is looking at two people very large numbers of people not only do not think are fit to be president on qualifications, looking at their records, but are just not fit morally. They do not have the character.


And people, I think, are voting on their version of a moral question. But voting on the other side. I do not like either of them, but I believe this person I can stand a little better than the other.


When I have gone onto sites or listened to the radio, the liberals are saying “you have got to vote against Trump” and the Republicans are saying “you have to vote against Hillary.”


Anything, just not Hillary. The Democrats say anything but Trump.


So, you have this election. It is like you are holding your nose voting for one because you cannot stand the other one more.


And that takes us back to Nixon. You look at the advertising around Nixon.


Even Nixon had some positive achievements going into 1972. Yes, that would probably be the closest to our time. But, again, I do not think either Nixon or McGovern had quite the animosity before Watergate really kicked in.

To project, on the fundamentals, it ought to be Hillary’s race to lose. So, I guess I would say, if you had to push me, I would give her a 51 percent chance of winning. I think, though, there is a vast milling, deep sense of unsettlement and anger and anti-establishment. I think it could carry Trump in if he is able to convince enough people he is not that dangerous.