Delaware Liberal

Saturday Open Thread [5.14.16]

Delaware Dem

It was him. Donald Trump is a pathetic weak little man.

Josh Marshall:

Muslim-smashin’, Mexican-bashin’ tough guy Donald Trump seems to have been caught red-handed denying that he impersonated a non-existent spokesman to tell reporters how awesome he is. (Meet Trump Organization spokesman John Miller, who you can’t meet because he doesn’t exist.) Trump denied this notwithstanding the fact that he admitted to doing this in a legal deposition years ago. The story was bubbling all day. But when The Washington Post (attack organ run by Trump Arch-Nemesis Jeff Bezos) confronted him with the deception on the phone, he first went silent on the reporters and then hung up.

Francis Wilkinson says Trump’s only path is to destroy Clinton: “There are two ways that Donald Trump can become president. Either he must become significantly more popular among general-election voters. Or his likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, must become significantly more unpopular. “It won’t take long for Trump to figure out which is the more promising path.”

“Trump is unlikely to gain traction against Clinton arguing about experience or temperament or preparedness or ideas. She overwhelms him on every count. Given his voluminous record of falsehoods, breathtaking at the presidential level of politics, he probably can’t win a contest on integrity either. But Trump is a very successful bully. He intuitively understands weakness. He will find a way to hurt her.”

She has already found a way to hurt him. Being mocked by strong women is something he hates. It sends him off the rails. And that is because he is a misogynist.

President Obama’s approval ratings are damn Reaganesque. Even better actually. But the media is doing it’s best to not notice.

Obama’s Gallup approval rating slightly exceeds Reagan’s from the same point in the Republican’s eighth year in office.

Obama’s Gallup rating April 25-May 1, 2016: 51 percent.

Reagan’s Gallup rating May 2-May 8, 1988: 50 percent.

So where are the media acknowledgements? (In the press, Reagan is often used as shorthand for a universally popular president.) In recent months, the Times has made only a few passing references to Obama’s approval ratings, according to Nexis.

In early March, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that Obama’s approval rating had risen to 51 percent, up from 45 percent in December. Big news, right? Nope. The Post reported that 51 percent fact in the ninth paragraph and devoted just one sentence to his surge.

Here’s another example: Last June when a CNN poll found that Obama’s approval rating dipped to 45 percent, CNN played the data as big news (“President Barack Obama’s job approval numbers are sinking”), complete with the taunting headline “Bush Now More Popular Than Obama.”

But more recently, when CNN polling pegged Obama’s approval at 51 percent, CNN downplayed the news. CNN’s polling write-up about the survey included just one sentence noting the president’s surge.

And in a recent 8,000-word opus, Politico outlined what it claims to have been Obama’s “failure” to communicate his agenda, and what “went wrong” inside the White House. It wasn’t until 7,000 words into the feature that Politico acknowledged Obama’s approval rating recently hit a three-year high. Politico also never mentioned that Obama’s approval today matches that of Reagan’s, who was known as The Great Communicator.

To date, Obama’s second term has been a broad success, and lots of voters agree. When’s the press going to take note?

Josh Marshall: Let’s all take stock of this being a thing: Donald Trump routinely threatens to use government power (DOJ, IRS, etc.) to attack his personal enemies once he becomes President. In other words, Trump openly promises to do what Republican propagandists and fever swamp nutballs have pretended or imagine Democratic presidents do.

Stuart Rothenberg says that talk of a competitive presidential race “is utter baloney.”

“Yes, it’s still six months to November and Trump has an opportunity to change the trajectory of the race, either by demonizing Hillary Clinton, improving his own reputation, or bringing in a flood of new voters.”

“Given the makeup of the likely electorate, state voting patterns, the images of the candidates, the deeply fractured GOP and the early survey data, Clinton starts off with a decisive advantage in the contest. A blowout is possible.”

Mitt Romney on Facebook:

It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity of a candidate’s representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who is seeking to become commander-in-chief.

Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump’s equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it’s a bombshell of unusual size.

The irony is thick here. Mitt Romney is doing to Trump what Harry Reid did to him.

Nancy LeTourneau says Hillary is campaigning to her strengths and is being authentic:

From New York to Pennsylvania to Kentucky, we’ve seen Clinton tackle everything from gun violence to labor issues to pre-k/childcare. But her consistent strategy is to target the issues that are of most concern to voters in the context of smaller, more intimate gatherings. Of course, this is in direct contrast to the strategy of her eventual competitor in the November election. I’d like to suggest several reason why this is a good plan for Clinton.

1. It plays to her strengths. Let’s face it, Clinton is a wonk more than a visionary. She’s never been particularly gifted at giving rousing speeches to big crowds. But in a small conversational gathering, she can show both the depth of her compassion as well as knowledge.

2. It gets good local air time. While we don’t hear much about these events in the national news, you can bet that when Hillary has lunch at Primanti Brothers, the local news organizations in Pittsburgh cover it – big time.

3. It allows Clinton to cover a wide array of issues. We’ve all seen how Sanders – at his big rallies – basically gives the same stump speech over and over. These smaller gatherings allow Hillary to zero in on the variety of issues that are important to the voters she is targeting.

4. It substitutes connection for inspiration. One of the challenges Hillary faces is that – as a wonk who believes in incremental change – she has a problem inspiring voters with lofty rhetoric. Intimate gatherings give her the opportunity to make an emotional connection with voters that might otherwise be lacking.

5. It paves the way for accountability. The lofty rhetoric of inspirational speeches can sometimes lead to disappointment among voters if politicians aren’t able to fulfill their promises. Conversational gatherings allow Hillary to go into more depth about the challenges we face and avoid making sweeping promises she won’t be able to keep.

Exit mobile version