Monday Open Thread [9.14.2015]
New York Times previews the upcoming second Republican debate on Wednesday:
“Just as last time, Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, will be to Mr. Trump’s left on the stage. Mr. Bush is the rival whom Mr. Trump most loves to kick, and it has visibly gotten under Mr. Bush’s skin.”
“To Mr. Trump’s right will be Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has become a recent target of the reality television star as he has risen in the polls, in part on the success of his performance at the first debate. Mr. Trump has used the same basic insult against Mr. Carson that he has against Mr. Bush — that he’s lacking in energy. But Mr. Carson’s response has been fairly self-assured, potentially forecasting a bit of a change in the dynamic for Mr. Trump, who has almost always succeeded in getting the last word with his opponents.”
First Read looks at what’s changed since the first debate:
Donald Trump has solidified his lead in the polls, and the critical coverage he received in July/August has been replaced by a perception that he’s bulletproof — at least for now;
Ben Carson has surged into second place, despite what originally seemed like a lackluster performance at the first debate and despite very little campaign activity;
Jeb Bush and Scott Walker have dropped — with Walker’s fall even more striking than Hillary Clinton’s decline over the past month;
On the issues front, the Iran deal is essentially a done deal, while the odds of a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood have increased;
Carly Fiorina has made it to the main debate stage, with CNN changing its debate criteria to allow for 11 to participate in the main debate, instead of the 10 we saw last month.
Bloomberg on Vice President Biden secretly meeting with a top Obama bundler in New York:
“The meeting appeared nowhere on his public schedule. It was held in secret at his hotel in Midtown Manhattan and lasted for more than 90 minutes: a private, one-on-one session with one of the most prominent and powerful fundraising stars in the Democratic firmament—a mega-bundler who happens to be, at least for now, publicly committed to Hillary Clinton.”
“According to multiple sources familiar with the planning under way, Bidenworld is now gaming out, and perhaps even leaning towards, a new timetable—with the vice president waiting until late October or early November to join the race.”
First Read says the waiting is hurting any campaign Biden can muster: “But as we’ve said before, Biden potentially waiting another month to start raising money limits how credible of a campaign he could mount. Remember, a sitting vice president running for the White House is an espensive endeavor — with his security apparatus, Biden can’t fly coach on Southwest Airlines to Iowa and New Hampshire. If he’s going to run and build the organization that would make him a credible candidate (built for the general), he needs to get in ASAP.”
Charles M. Blow at The New York Times looks at Bernie Sanders and the Black Vote:
Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders spoke Saturday to a half-empty gymnasium at Benedict College in South Carolina. The school is historically black, but the crowd appeared to be largely white. This underscores the severe challenge facing the Sanders campaign: African-American voters have yet to fully connect to the man and the message.
Michelle Goldberg at The Nation looks at the gender double standard regarding Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton:
In a Washington Post piece titled “The Amazing Honesty of Joe Biden,” Chris Cillizza writes, “Where Clinton is struggling with the perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, Biden is all honesty. Where Clinton is cautious and closed off, Biden is spontaneous and an open book.” Russell Berman writes at The Atlantic, “Clinton’s poll numbers are sinking, at least in part, because she is seen, once again, as the epitome of caution and parsing. Biden may be the consummate politician, but he is seen as the opposite.”
Cillizza and Berman are right about the perceptions. It seems worth pointing out, however, that no woman has the option of this kind of candor. Try to answer this question: Is there a single woman in America about whom anyone could say, “Everybody likes her, right?” (I mean besides Beyoncé, who is worshiped for her aloof perfection.) A female candidate who was prone, as Biden is, to veering off script and saying things she should not wouldn’t seem frank and lovable. She would seem sloppy and unstable. No woman could say on national television that she might be too emotionally fragile to run for president, and still be seen as someone who could actually run for president.
Biden seems to offer something unique to the candidacy according to the following article, which paints him as a grounded man with unshakeable values – someone the public can really relate to. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/13/what-will-joe-biden-do.html
Is it really a gender double standard when one candidate comes off artificial, calculating and always waiting for the latest focus group tested results to come in while another seems so down to earth their comments seem off the cuff (and sometimes inappropriate)?
Sometimes gender has nothing to do with it.
Every once in a while you hear a clip of Clinton of Secretary Clinton speaking with someone directly and unguardedly about the issues, and in those moments, she is great.
Regardless of whether the double standard is real or not, unless she figures out how to tap into that on an ongoing basis she is doomed.
We can only hope that Joe runs and Hillary goes away!
I am glad to see the double standard addressed. While many claim to be feminist, I see sexism in their in their attitude towards Clinton.
I’d tend to agree with Sussex Anon. For example, I don’t believe Elizabeth Warren would have this problem. When every “statement” from the “campaign” closes with “aides say” the entire enterprise looks corporatised. She apologised for the private email server after so many months of ducking it because of a focus group in New England.
Look, I think the email thing is a political hatchet job (no substance at all), but that doesn’t change the fact that triangulation and nakedly poll tested strategies and all the rest of it turn people off.
” I see sexism in their in their attitude towards Clinton.”
My attitude toward Hillary Clinton centers on an aversion to family dynasties. It also focuses on her corprocrat ways (like MR Carper, MR Coons, and MR Obama) Women make up more than 50% of the population… there has got to be someone who is a better progressive (cough Warren couch) that can break that glass ceiling. I think there are people who need to question their support for Clinton and ask if they would still be supporting her if she were a man, or if they would be calling her out for the banking and military schill that she is.
I know many of you have fallen in love with Sanders as you did with Obama. I can see times when Sanders can come across as artificial. If you fall with a candidate, you cannot see their weaknesses or inconsistencies and are bound to disappointed eventually. We have months to study the candidates and their proposals. Why not be good citizens and do our homework.