Friday Open Thread [4.22.16]
NATIONAL—Ipsos/Reuters–Trump 49, Cruz 31, Kasich 16
NATIONAL—Ipsos/Reuters–Clinton 51, Sanders 45
CALIFORNIA—Capitol Weekly/Sextant Strategies–Trump 41, Cruz 23, Kasich 21.
INDIANA—Politico Internal–Cruz 32, Trump 32, Kasich 14
Washington Post: “Hillary Clinton’s victory in the New York primary Tuesday has brought Sen. Bernie Sanders one step closer to a series of difficult decisions that can be summed up in one simple question: What does Bernie want? How he answers that question will have a direct bearing on how united Democrats will be heading into the fall campaign — and whether Sanders will be able to leverage his success this year into lasting power and influence.”
“Hillary Clinton’s short list of vice presidential options will include a woman, a top campaign official said in an interview — creating the possibility of an all-female ticket emerging from the Democratic convention in Philadelphia,” the Boston Globe reports. Said campaign chairman John Podesta: “We’ll start with a broad list and then begin to narrow it. But there is no question that there will be women on that list.”
“The development immediately injects liberal darling Senator Elizabeth Warren’s name into the growing speculation about who Clinton will choose as her running mate now that she is almost certainly on track to become the nominee.”
Clinton-Warren would solve all Sanders-related problems. And I know the argument against it: Warren is better in the Senate, we can’t lose a progressive in the Senate. Well, the Progressive caucus in the Senate is not just Sanders and Warren. There is Merkley, Baldwin, Brown, Schatz, Sanders, Warren, Murphy, Booker, Markey, Reed, Franken and Hirono. Plus I assume Warren wouldn’t accept it unless she is given significant policy management.
Nate Cohn: “Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next Tuesday, uses a nonbinding ‘loophole’ primary — and that could cost Donald Trump the Republican nomination.”
“If the state adopted the delegate rules of any other primary, he would probably be an even-money favorite, or better, to amass the 1,237 delegates needed before the convention. Instead, his chances may come down to the whims of 54 unpledged Pennsylvania delegates.”
Carl Cannon wonders what would have happened if Elizabeth Warren would have run: “Let’s be honest, though. These are four flawed candidates, which is why when two or more Republicans are in a room the talk turns to Paul Ryan. In a more muted fashion the same worry permeates the Democratic Party, which finds itself choosing between a 74-old senator who called himself a socialist until recently and a familiar face with lots of baggage, mainly about her credibility and character.”
“But the Democrats also had a knight in shining armor who chose not to run. Unlike Paul Ryan, she could have amassed delegates the old-fashioned way—by winning primaries and caucuses. The 2016 campaign set up perfectly for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. If she’d run, we might not be paying any attention to Tuesday’s New York primary. Warren may well have locked up the Democratic presidential nomination by now.”
If she’d run, Sanders would not have, but Hillary would have. I don’t think the race would be over, because many Democrats do love Hillary and are voting FOR her rather than AGAINST Sanders, but Warren would be favored to win.
“The Republican Party is not capable of nominating anyone who is electable nationally.” — Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), quoted by the Oneonta Daily Star.
National Review: “Indiana has emerged as Cruz’s top priority. It awards 57 delegates, and Cruz’s brain trust believes a clean sweep there — or close to it — would erase Trump’s already-thin margin for error and effectively end his hopes of entering Cleveland with 1,237 delegates. Accordingly, they have been preparing to throw everything they have at the state, in an effort to reapply the formula that worked to such devastating effect in Wisconsin.”
“Still, Indiana, despite its demographic similarities, isn’t Wisconsin — and the perfect storm that lifted Cruz to victory there April 5 could prove impossible to recreate. The conservative talk-radio army that toppled Trump is nowhere to be found. There is no sign — yet — of a multimillion-dollar assault by outside groups on the GOP front-runner. And unlike Wisconsin, where Cruz was backed by much of the Republican establishment, Indiana’s top officials have not rallied to him.”
In the aftermath of this rout, the chances of Sanders winning the Democratic nomination are so small that some in his camp are now pinning their hopes on winning over superdelegates. Or on pulling off a miracle in multiple ballots at a contested convention, Republican style. That’s not happening. If Sanders’s presidential bid is not over already, the nails in the coffin are likely to be hammered in next week in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island. So why should he stay in? One reason: to help prepare and toughen up Hillary Clinton for what’s to come in a general election that may well not be the cakewalk so many Democrats seem to be taking as a fait accompli.
Clinton’s landslide in her adopted home state of New York was overwhelming. But it doesn’t mask the fact that many voters find her untrustworthy, as reflected in her sliding national poll numbers. In the latest Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll, Sanders has moved within two points of her nationally. That’s meaningless in terms of the overall horse race between them, but beneath that umbrella number are other findings that show her negative numbers on the rise among the overall electorate — not to Trump levels, but grim by any other standard. Even her approval ratings among both black and Latino voters have slid decisively since the start of the year. Of course she is going to win those groups overwhelmingly in November. But if their turnout is depressed because of a lack of enthusiasm, that’s a problem, particularly given her poor numbers among young Democratic voters who may be tempted to stay home with neither Barack Obama nor Bernie on the ballot, and her poor standing among white voters in general. Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who co-runs the WSJ-NBC poll with the Democrat Peter Hart, calculates that Clinton’s “favorability” rating among whites is lower than Obama’s has ever been. That’s saying something.
A coronation may be what the Clinton campaign now wants, but I’d suggest that Clinton has more to gain by staying in a dialogue, a debate, with Sanders, and ultimately forging some kind of communion with him and, more important, his voters, in real time. She will need every one of them in November. Indeed, I’d argue that if Sanders continues to be as strident and harsh as he was during the New York primary campaign, that is also to Clinton’s benefit — as long as she refuses to rise to the bait and instead presents herself as an upbeat counterpart to both him and Trump. Sanders pulling out now, or soon, would deny her that opportunity, allow Trump to monopolize the national stage all spring, and reinforce exactly the sense of entitlement Clinton needs to avoid if she is to start to reclaim a positive public image.
The Queen turned 90 this week, and I wanted to share this story her badass Majesty:
After lunch, the Queen had asked her royal guest whether he would like a tour of the estate. Prompted by his foreign minister the urbane Prince Saud, an initially hesitant Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] had agreed. The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, his interpreter in the seat behind.
To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not — yet — allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen.
His nervousness only increased as the Queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.
The RNC “is scaling back its financial commitments to some of the most hotly contested states because of flagging fund-raising, the most concrete evidence yet of how the party’s divisive and protracted presidential race is threatening the entire Republican ticket in November,” the New York Times reports.
“Committee officials outlined detailed plans in written ‘playbooks’ distributed this year in the most competitive states about how they intended to assist Republican campaigns up and down the ballot with money and manpower. By July 1, Florida was to have 256 field organizers and Ohio another 176, for example, according to a state party chairman in possession of the strategy books who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.”
“Hillary Clinton has burned through tens of millions of dollars to counter Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in states that are unlikely to be general election battlegrounds, delaying any pivot to the general election and shrinking her potential financial advantage over the eventual Republican nominee,” the New York Times reports.
“While Mrs. Clinton has built a significant advantage in pledged delegates over Mr. Sanders in the Democratic nominating contest, her lead has come at a significant cost. She spent more than she raised in each of the first three months of the year, according to Federal Election Commission data, including more than $12 million on ads in March alone… Mrs. Clinton has spent at least $20 million on advertising in states like New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, money that could otherwise have been saved for the general election.”
Donald Trump would “absolutely” change the Republican Party’s platform on abortion to include exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, Politico reports. Said Trump: “Yes, I would. Yes, I would. Absolutely. For the three exceptions, I would.” Well, that alone will burn down Quicken Arena.
The true believers on the right will stay home if a pro abortion platform is adopted at the RNC, and pro abortion to them is any exception to a complete abortion ban. They will not vote for Trump.
But I have never seen seen a bunch of bank CEO’s squirm like worms as when they are under senate testimony and Warren is asking the questions.
Warren could not accept VP without being told to “tone it down.” I hope she is smarter than that. As tempting as a Warren VP is, if Hillary had been able to earn Warren’s endorsement, Sanders would have evaporated like a puff of steam months ago.
“If she’d run [Warren}, we might not be paying any attention to Tuesday’s New York primary.”
But then who would we accuse of sexism?
Issues. You have them.
“…because many Democrats do love Hillary and are voting FOR her rather than AGAINST Sanders,..”
Keep telling yourself that.
Issues. Jason has them. Seriously, his Clinton Derangement Syndrome now exceeds your typical teabagger.
You guys are being pretty harsh. I still harbor reservations about the future president… can you all say you are 100% ok with 100% of everything Clinton? Should the discussion still be about how to make her the best democrat possible?
I’m not 100% okay with 100% of everything Clinton or Sanders.
OOOHHHH NOO! Clinton derangement teabaggery! 😉 I think Jason is simply refusing to underestimate Trump and refusing to give the Media.. who’s shitty coverage will drive the course of this election… any credit at all.
Thank you Ben. I think my esteemed colleagues are suffering from projection.
Teabagger tactics took control of Congress in 2010 and successfully prevented the worst conservative fears from coming to pass. I wouldn’t mind if Democrats took Congress and prevented the worst fears of liberals from coming to pass.
Ben, I would love nothing more than to turn the conversation to a more positive direction regarding the presumptive nominee and making her the best candidate she can be, and best President she can be, from a liberal, progressive, and winning prespective. I have yet to see Jason offer such. Maybe he has in other threads, but all I have seen is comments on how Clinton’s supporters are delusional (‘just keep telling yourself that.”)
It seemed a little forced.
Why are you waiting on Jason? lean in, homeboy. Perhaps if you start presenting your case, you might just convince some people. Are you afraid that if you start to talk about Clinton in anything less than a defensive way she will lose support?
Defensive isn’t really the right word… but everything you post seems to come from a place of “i gotta convince these people”. How can she be a better progressive… or DO you think she is best progressive she can be?
Breaking: Bernie in Wilmington Saturday at 1
@DD “…but Warren would be favored to win.”
The polling wasn’t there for her. It would have bee a huge uphill slog for her, and ending in likely defeat. I just don’t see how people can glibly say “She would have won.” No… she would not have won.
@p “Warren could not accept VP without being told to “tone it down.” ”
That’s not true. VP candidates have traditionally been the “pit bulls” of a campaign.
But remember what GHW Bush did to Bob Dole as VP nominee? He took an honorable sort of politician and turned him into a rank partisan hack. Dole never fully recovered.
I don’t think we have that worry with Warren…
@B “Perhaps if you start presenting your case, you might just convince some people.”
Hillary is not a perfect candidate. I believe that many (if not most) of her real problems stem from a slanderous and continuous narrative pushed by her enemies (esp. from the right). Most of the time, their efforts have been blatant and clumsy (Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!), but some of it has really damaged her.
I think that one of the best things we can do for her is to counter the slander whether it comes from the right or the left (Bernie Slanders). The stuff from the Sanders is over the top bad. He really should know better…
Sanders has good political views, but he is a bad candidate (unelectable) who apparently hasn’t a clue how to accomplish anything (rigid and uncompromising). It’s a really good thing that he energized people, but it’s also a really good thing that he lost.
Hillary is clearly a candidate that is head and shoulders above the rest of the field. It would be a real shame if she didn’t win (and perhaps a tragedy for the country as a whole).
And is she perfect… Hell no, but… (What did Rumsfeld say… about going to war…) We go to the polling booth pulling the levers for the candidates he have, not the candidates we’d really want (e.g. Warren).
So im not going to argue this anymore than pointing out that Sanders keeps polling as more electable as time goes on. He wont be the nominee, so there is no need to debate that, but if you’re going to talk about false, media-driven narratives, you better check your own house. You really cant resist kicking a dead horse, can ya?
@B “So im not going to argue this anymore than pointing out that Sanders keeps polling as more electable as time goes on.”
Good. Because it’s irrelevant. No one is attacking Sanders. Once they do, his numbers will plummet. The only question is “how far?”.
The GOP would just LOVE to run against Sanders. They’ve been very busy ratfucking the nomination from the beginning just to get that chance. It’s a good thing that they failed.
@Ben “You really cant resist kicking a dead horse, can ya?”
Not when that dead horse is still kicking back. I’m going to wait until he stops whining about Hillary.
“I believe that many (if not most) of her real problems stem” from the fact that she is devoid of a personality that people can relate to and she so wonky that she has difficulty communicating ideas without reams of data.
But she has had two decades of dealing with negativity from all quarters from the time she was trying get something going in health care, being blamed for Lewinsky, and of course Foster’s suicide (was it really Hilary’s gun?) up to now with her email.
Really is there anything she hasn’t been accused of over the years? Is there anything they could say about her that hasn’t been said or suggested? She’s been battle tested and if she loses, it won’t be because she folded under pressure.
“I just don’t see how people can glibly say “She would have won.” No… she would not have won.”
And I just don’t see how people can glibly say “She would not have won.” No… she would have won.
Evidence-free assertions work equally well no matter which side you choose.
The numbers weren’t there (don’t know when you’re talking about) because she had no name recognition, a problem that solves itself as a person runs.
And when Warren ran she received a lot of the same criticism as Clinton is receiving now (unlikable, schoolmarmish, coarse, preachy, lawyer-like). Warren also said she was treated differently in the senate due to her gender (OMG! She cited sexism!) – and her win in BLUE Massachusetts wasn’t a liberal blow-out (53.7% – 46.2%).
And if you love Warren, thank, in good part, the woman’s vote who went for Warren by 60% to 40% for Brown, while men split between the two 50/50.
We tend to love women once they get into office, not while they’re running for office.
@a “The numbers weren’t there (don’t know when you’re talking about) because she had no name recognition, a problem that solves itself as a person runs.”
Huh??? We’re talking about the Democratic party, here. She’s one of the top 5 best known Democrats!!
…and her polling numbers suggested that she could never catch Hillary.
“Evidence-free assertions work equally well no matter which side you choose.”
There is very good evidence for my assertion. Do you need me to drag all that out?
OTOH, for your stance… not so much.
Check the numbers. There was one Democrat with name recognition, Hillary. There were two Republicans, Bush and Trump. All the others were known only to people who follow politics year-in, year-out. Polling for presidential primaries one year out always reflects the person with the highest name recognition. Check the numbers.
What were Bernie Sanders’ numbers before he launched his bid? People singing his praises today barely heard of him four years ago.
If it helps, think of her as Hillary Clinton without the baggage. All they have on her is that she’s 1/32nd Native American. Trump fans probably think that makes her an immigrant. Or, instead, Sanders without the need of a personality transplant.
I don’t think she was ready or willing, but she would have been able. Why you want to dispute that is beyond comprehension.
No matter how many times the commercials made the claim, Lite Beer never tasted great and it wasn’t less filling. But maybe you like the stuff.
@a “I don’t think she was ready or willing”
Of course she was ready and willing. She did an honest assessment of the chances and declined. It was the right move on her part.
Do you need more evidence? Read Pandora’s post above. If she was so loved by liberals, then why did she have so much trouble getting elected in perhaps the bluest of blue states???
Have you got any contrary evidence? What do you have that suggests that she could actually beat Hillary? Anything???
“Why you want to dispute that is beyond comprehension.”
Because it’s a lie. And it’s a lie made with the clear intent of diminishing Hillary and her accomplishments.
The only lie is yours:
https://ballotpedia.org/Elizabeth_Warren_possible_presidential_campaign,_2016
Not one word about her doing “an honest assessment of the chances and declined.”
Who is diminishing whom?
@a “Who is diminishing whom?”
Apparently, you’re only diminishing yourself. Thanks for the good laugh.
I’m trying to follow this, anon. Are you saying that because Warren never said she did an assessment of her chances that means she never did an assessment? I’m not sure how you prove that.
Where’s the evidence she did? That should be easy to prove, yet it has not been. How does saying Warren could have won “diminish” Hillary Clinton? That has not been shown either. The claim that Warren looked into a run was not mine. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Lots of proclamations, little evidence, and an odd claim for supposed liberals to make at all. The only evidence so far offered for this strange position is that her poll numbers were lower than Clinton’s, which I provided an explanation for. This explanation was rejected because … well, no reason I can see other than wanting to proclaim Hillary Clinton the sole rightful possessor of the nomination.
Obviously we don’t know what would have happened in the real world. Warren’s favorable/unfavorable ratings were about even, but 40 percent of the voters had no opinion. She had much more room for growth because so few people had formed any opinion of her, while Clinton has to contend with a higher number of people who have already formed their opinions.
The knee-jerk defense of Hillary Clinton, given the mildness of my original claim, says a lot about her defenders.