Phil Klinkner takes to the pages of the LA Times this morning to tell us that immigration was a big deal in the 2016 election:

Comparing the results of the 2012 and 2016 ANES surveys shows that Trump increased his vote over Mitt Romney’s on a number of immigration-related issues. In 2012 and 2016, the ANES asked respondents their feelings toward immigrants in the country illegally. Respondents could rate them anywhere between 100 (most positive) or 0 (most negative). Among those with positive views (above 50), there was no change between 2012 and 2016, with Romney and Trump each receiving 22% of the vote. Among those who had negative views, however, Trump did better than Romney, capturing 60% of the vote compared with only 55% for Romney.

....Overall, immigration represented one of the biggest divides between Trump and Clinton voters. Among Trump voters, 67% endorsed building a southern border wall and 47% of them favored it a great deal. In contrast, 77% of Clinton voters opposed building a wall and 67 % strongly opposed it.

This gibes with my anecdotal view that a fair number of Trump voters didn't pay much attention to anything he said except that he was going to build a wall and keep the Mexicans out. All the budget and regulation and Obamacare and climate change stuff was just noise that they didn't take very seriously. But building a wall was nice and simple, and they thought it would bring back their jobs and keep their towns safe.

Having said that, though, I want to repeat a warning: everyone should stop looking for tectonic changes that account for Trump's win. Hillary Clinton was running for a third Democratic term during OK-but-not-great economic times, and that's always difficult. Most of the fundamentals-based models predicted she'd win by a couple of percentage points, and she actually did much better than that—until James Comey decided to destroy her. And even at that, she did win by a couple of percentage points. It was a fluke of the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House, not a historic shift in voting patterns.

The real question is how Trump won the Republican primary. At the presidential level, that's a far more interesting topic than what happened in a fairly ordinary general election.

According to Gallup, views of President Trump's have plummeted since February:

On the other hand, according to Pollster his approval rating has been improving for the past couple of weeks:

I guess a couple of high-profile bombings can do wonders even if people don't really trust you much anymore.

What's on our president's mind on this lovely Easter morning? Let's check in:

This came after a series of tweets griping about folks who still want to see his tax returns; the paid agitators behind yesterday's rallies; and China not being a currency manipulator as long as they play ball on North Korea. You can almost feel the morning star of our Savior's resurrection infusing Trump's heart with warmth and gladness, can't you?

Speaking of which, I gather that there was no sunrise service on Trump's schedule today. That's OK with me—I slept in too—but it's kind of funny, especially since Politico informs us that Trump is becoming more Godly now that he's in the Oval Office:

President Donald Trump has increasingly infused references to God into his prepared remarks — calling on God to bless all the world after launching strikes in Syria, asking God to bless the newest Supreme Court Justice, invoking the Lord to argue in favor of a war on opioids.

He's also taken other steps to further cultivate a Christian right that helped elect him, granting new levels of access to Christian media and pushing socially conservative positions that don't appear to come naturally to him.

Apparently Trump isn't even a Christmas-and-Easter Christian, but he's still "cultivating" the Christian right. He may be an atheist in practice—none of us actually believe his recent nonsense about praying more often, do we?—but that won't stop the Christian right from embracing Trump as long as he's against abortion and Democrats and says the word "God" once in a while. With practice, maybe he'll even be able to toss out the occasional Biblical allusion.

It probably sounds like there's not much warmth in my heart either this morning, and obviously I need to work on that when it comes to Trump. After all, even here in the land of palm trees, light arises in the darkness for us upright folks.

UPDATE: I guess Trump attended Easter services after all. It all happened at the Episcopal Church of Bethesda-by-the-Sea in Palm Beach.

Via Gallup, here's another hot-off-the-presses example of different partisan responses to similar situations:

Republican views of the taxes they pay improved substantially when Bush and Trump were elected—even before any actual changes were made to the tax code—while Democrats had essentially no reaction when Obama was elected. Likewise, Republican views declined sharply when Obama was elected, but Democratic views didn't decline when Bush and Trump were elected.

Now, this is not a great example. Republicans take taxes more seriously than Democrats, and they expect that Republican presidents will cut taxes. The fact that their view of tax fairness changes even before anything happens may simply reflect their justified confidence that their taxes will indeed go down under a Republican administration.

If, instead, the question were, "What's your view of racial justice in America?" it's possible that Democrats would react strongly to the election of a Republican, while Republicans wouldn't care much. Does anybody know of any actual examples like this?

Thomas Edsall writes that as we recovered from the Great Recession, big cities did pretty well but rural areas didn't. "The fact that people living outside big cities were battered so acutely by the recession goes a long way toward explaining President Trump’s victory in the last election," he says, which he illustrates with this chart:

I don't think there's much question that Edsall is right in general, but this particular chart seemed off somehow. It combines both population growth and employment rate in a confusing way, and it covers the whole country, so it doesn't account for the way different states responded to the recession. I pondered for a while what I'd rather see, and decided to examine the unemployment rate in California counties. California has a good mix of big cities and rural counties, including a lot of farming counties that voted heavily for Trump, and every county benefited from identical state policies since they're all in the same state. Here's the chart, which compares unemployment at the peak of the last expansion to today:

There are four points I can make about this:

  • If you draw an overall trend line (light gray line), it turns out that that unemployment declined a bit more in smaller counties than in larger counties.
  • The big cities (purple) all fall into a very small cluster, showing declines between about -1 percent and 0. The smaller counties (orange) are scattered all over the place, from -3 percent all the way up to +4 percent.
  • The average drop in unemployment is roughly the same in both big cities and the rest of the state. Big cities (-0.39 percent) did marginally better than everyone else (-0.25 percent).
  • The main farming counties have done poorly. Their unemployment rate has increased by +1.0 percent.

This is just one state, and I'm not trying to pretend that this data offers anything conclusive. What's more, Edsall has some other facts and figures to back up his point. Still, I'll toss out two guesses:

  • Big cities may have recovered better than rural areas, but only modestly. The difference isn't huge, and by itself doesn't really explain why Trump won.
  • The large effect Edsall sees may be due to differing state responses to the recession. I suspect that rural red states shot themselves in the foot by adopting conservative policies (cut taxes, slash spending) that hurt their recovery. This may have been an especially big factor in the 2008-09 recession, since the federal government did less than usual to cushion the blow.

I don't know if anyone with real econometric chops has tested my second guess. If I find anything, I'll follow up.

Lunchtime Photo

This was taken a day after this month's full moon on the campus of Christ Cathedral in Garden Grove, California. This was formerly the site of the Crystal Cathedral, one of Orange County's most famous landmarks, built by the Rev. Robert Schuller in 1980. After Schuller's empire went bankrupt in 2010, the Catholic Church bought the entire 34-acre campus and made it the seat of the diocese of Orange. After many years of fundraising, the cathedral is currently undergoing renovations to make it suitable for Catholic masses. It's expected to be consecrated and reopened later this year or 2018.

This is Hilbert taking a look at the outside world as Marian and I returned from a walk. He was so thrilled to see us that we couldn't stop him from jumping down and following us. This is bad, bad, bad, and in the end Marian had to pick him up and carry him the rest of the way home, just to make sure he didn't start getting any ideas. Backyards good. Outside world bad.

The problem with the outside world is that it's sort of like heroin: once you get a taste you want more and more, and you end up like this cat. "Terrific stuff by the cat!" says the announcer in the video, and it surely is. Nonetheless, the cat spent the rest of the night cowering behind the center field wall, trying to figure out how to escape. Let this be a lesson to all housecats: There's no place like home.

So much for visitor logs:

The Trump administration announced Friday that it would not follow former president Barack Obama's policy of voluntarily disclosing the names of most visitors to the White House complex....White House communications director Mike Dubke said Friday that [Trump] has taken several steps to ensure the government “is both ethical and accessible to the American people.” Among those he mentioned were new restrictions on lobbyists and allowing journalists to participate remotely in White House briefings via Skype.

Given the grave national security risks and privacy concerns of the hundreds of thousands of visitors annually, the White House Office will disclose Secret Service logs as outlined under the Freedom of Information Act, a position the Obama White House successfully defended in federal court,” Dubke said in a statement.

One theory about Trump is that the best predictor of his policy views is "whatever Obama did, do the opposite." Those of you who subscribe to this theory can take a victory lap. The rest of us need to update our priors.

"Grave national security risks." Yes indeedy.

Uh oh. The latest CPI figures are out today. It's just another monthly reminder that inflation is spiraling out of—wait. What? Inflation went down in March? So it did:

As you can see, the Consumer Price Index (dark blue) declined last month by a fair amount. Why? Because oil prices (light blue) declined by a fair amount. The CPI is pretty sensitive to oil prices, which is why most economists look instead at core CPI, which excludes food and energy. It's not that those things aren't important—they affect your pocketbook the same as anything else—it's just that they don't tell you very much about the state of the economy. They tend to go up and down for reasons other than wage pressure and employment levels: bumper crops, wars in the Middle East, bad weather, etc.

Core CPI also dropped this month, and it's now back down to 2 percent. PCE price inflation is below 2 percent. Overall, there just isn't a lot of inflationary pressure in the economy, and not a lot of wage growth either.

In other economic news, consumer confidence is up but retail spending is down.

The retail “data are impossible to square with the stratospheric levels of consumer confidence recorded across an array of surveys,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics That suggests either that “spending will accelerate markedly…or confidence will decline.”

Retail spending has ticked down for the past few months even if you exclude food and gasoline to get a "core" retail sales figure:

So what's going on? Maybe nothing. A month or three does not a trend make. Maybe people are just taking a little breather after increasing spending for most of 2016. Whatever the reason, though, consumer spending seems to have hit a bit of a wall since January.

A couple of days ago I wrote that we, the traveling public, have conclusively demonstrated that we care about nothing but price. This is one reason air travel has become progressively more awful. Steve Randy Waldman is sick and tired of people like me saying things like this:

There are two things wrong with this line that air travel is awful because consumers’ true revealed preference is that it should be awful and cheap. First, there is the fact that air travel managed by the main domestic carriers in the United States is uniquely awful, and there is no evidence that US travelers are any more price conscious than consumers in other countries. No frills, discount air travel is popular in Europe as well, and it is sometimes awful, but it is on the whole much cheaper than “discount” air travel within the US. Mainstream carriers almost everywhere else in the developed world are notably less awful than the big American carriers, and often just as cheap.

When I was writing my post, this was actually at the top of my mind. Is American air travel really uniquely awful? The problem is not just that I couldn't think of any data to bring to bear on this question, I couldn't even think of any anecdotal data that would be meaningful. It's true that I hear griping about American carriers a lot more than I do about European carriers, but then, living in California I would, wouldn't I? Complaint rates might be germane, but should that be per flight or per 100,000 miles or what? And are fares really the same or lower than in the US? That's hard to say, since Europe is simply a different environment: different regulators, shorter distances, more concentrated population centers, real competition from trains, etc. Nor do I know how subsidies play out among various countries.

The bottom line is that this would take some very careful research indeed. However, if you absolutely insist, I just spent the past few minutes doing some un-careful research. All I can say about it is that I promise I didn't cherry pick. For the US, I chose the four biggest airlines. For Europe, I chose four representative big airlines, and I chose them before I looked at the data:

US data is for March 2017 here. European airline data is for Q1 2016 from Britain's CAA here. For Europe, this is not continent-wide data. It's only for complaints filed in the UK.1

I have absolutely no idea if these numbers are really comparable. Do Americans simply complain less than Brits? (Seems unlikely.) Is it easier to complain in Britain? Are "enplanements" (US) the same as "passengers" (Europe)? Or do European airlines really suck way worse than US airlines?

I don't know, and you shouldn't assume this chart tells you. Still, it definitely doesn't suggest that US airlines are uniquely awful. The bottom line is that we need real research to come to any conclusions here. If I'm bored this weekend, maybe I'll look for some.2

1One thing you can't do is use US data to compare domestic and international carriers. The international carriers are flying exclusively international flights into the US, and the rules and flying experiences are very different for domestic and international flights. One way or another, you have to use local data so that you get a roughly comparable split of domestic and international flights for all carriers.

2But probably not. I've got other work to do.