Tuesday Open Thread [5.31.16]
Rebecca Traitor at New York Magazine has a lengthy and fascinating profile of Hillary Clinton, that is well worth a full read. But here is an excerpt:
There are a lot of reasons — internal, external, historical — for the way Clinton deals with the public, and the way we respond to her. But there is something about the candidate that is getting lost in translation. The conviction that I was in the presence of a capable, charming politician who inspires tremendous excitement would fade and in fact clash dramatically with the impressions I’d get as soon as I left her circle: of a campaign imperiled, a message muddled, unfavorables scarily high. To be near her is to feel like the campaign is in steady hands; to be at any distance is to fear for the fate of the republic. […]
When I asked her why she thinks women’s ambition is regarded as dangerous, she posited that it was about “a fear that ambition will crowd out everything else — relationships, marriage, children, family, homemaking, all the other parts [of life] that are important to me and important to most women I know.” She also mentioned the unappealing stereotyping: “We’re so accustomed to think of women’s ambition being made manifest in ways that we don’t approve of, or that we find off-putting.”
For more on FiveThirtyEight’s quide to the Sweepstakes, click here.
Washington Post: “During his first big campaign swing since locking up the Republican presidential nomination, Trump went after an odd and seemingly random group of people — Democrats and Republicans, famous and obscure. There seemed little to gain politically from the attacks, and his targets were linked by just one thing: Trump felt they had all done him wrong.”
“Trump’s cutting insults and simplistic attacks have been a hallmark of his candidacy, viewed by supporters as proof that he is fearless and willing to attack institutions from the Republican Party to the Vatican. During Trump’s fight for the Republican nomination, his calculated shots at rivals helped take them out, one by one.”
“But with the nomination apparently secured, last week’s fusillade of digs seemed counterproductive.”
#TrueDetectiveSeasonThree pic.twitter.com/kizEwgHk3I
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) May 31, 2016
Sanders & Glover. I sense a new Lethal Weapon series.
Markos Moulitsas on Sander’s plan to oust Barney Frank and Dan Malloy from their assignments on two DNC Convention Committees:
Newly minted Democrat Bernie Sanders seeks to disqualify the first openly gay congressman who also happens to be the author of Dodd-Frank—the law Sanders would use to break up the banks, He also seeks to disqualify the architect of incredible progressive achievements in Connecticut, including paid family leave, stricter gun laws, and a dramatic decline in the state’s prison population. You know, two long-time Democrats who have done amazing shit. And why? Because they’re “aggressive attack surrogates” … in a political campaign! Try to contain your horror, please. Meanwhile, in what is apparently not a joke, Sanders named Cornel West to the platform committee, who is not an “aggressive attack surrogate” at all… Sanders was supposedly the antithesis of a politician, yet here he is challenging the worst of them in the hypocrisy game.
fun fact: in last 50 yrs, only 2 presidents have hit Memorial Day in 8th yr w/ 50%+ approv. both were Dems, according to Gallup. (BC, BO)
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) May 30, 2016
In the last 50 years, going back to 1966, the only two term Presidents were Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Clinton, W.Bush, and Obama. Obviously, W. and Ford are in no competition, with ratings in the 20’s and 30’s. But both Clinton and Obama were and are more popular than Reagan.
First Read on why Hillary needs to win California: “Yes, Hillary Clinton is just 72 delegates away from crossing the 2,383 magic number needed for a majority of delegates to win the Democratic convention. Yes, she’s likely to hit that milestone before polls even close in California (due to the New Jersey primary and its 126 pledged delegates). And, yes, even if she loses in California by 10 points, her lead over Bernie Sanders in pledged delegates would still be twice the size of Obama’s lead over Clinton in 2008.”
“But here’s the reason why Clinton needs to beat Sanders in California next week: She doesn’t want to give him any legitimate rationale to remain in the race beyond June 7 or June 14 (the final primary in DC). Why? Because… the moment Sanders exits the race, her poll numbers against Trump will increase… Maybe that’s why Clinton has canceled an event in New Jersey this week to spend more time in California.”
New California county level projections, same state level result: Clinton 56% – Sanders 44%. pic.twitter.com/KZvnrGzzL0
— Benchmark Politics (@benchmarkpol) May 30, 2016
California Governor Jerry Brown has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Knowing his history with Bill, it is noteworthy.
[I]n an “Open Letter to California Democrats and Independents[,]” [Brown] says that a vote for Clinton “is the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump.”
Brown’s letter is highly complimentary toward Bernie Sanders and his campaign, and says he is “deeply impressed with how well Bernie Sanders has done.” It also argues that, in a sense, Brown’s own 1992 primary campaign offered a template for the sort of grassroots fundraising effort that Sanders has taken to a new level.
But he says that Clinton “has convincingly made the case that she knows how to get things done and has the tenacity and skill to advance the Democratic agenda.” And that currently her “lead is insurmountable and Democrats have shown — by millions of votes — that they want her as their nominee.” Consequently, he thinks it’s time for the party to come together[.]
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol wrote on Twitter over the weekend that there will be an “impressive” independent candidate on the ballot in November with “a strong team and a real chance” to defeat Donald Trump.
Trump responded: “Bill Kristol has been wrong for 2yrs — an embarrassed loser, but if the GOP can’t control their own, then they are not a party. Be tough, R’s!” He added that an independent candidate would mean conservatives can “say good bye to the Supreme Court.”
Emma Roller at The New York Times, who profiles the down-ballot candidates who are struggling with the fact that Donald Trump will be at the top of their ticket:
[W]ith Mr. Trump having clinched the Republican nomination, down-ballot candidates are finding the task of distancing themselves from their presidential nominee much easier said than done. On what seems to be an hourly basis, Mr. Trump churns out politically incorrect invective that has the dual effect of firing up his supporters and offending women, Latinos, Muslims and, as Mr. Trump has called them in the past, “the blacks.”
So Republicans in moderate states will be forced, over the next five months, to show that they are not the same as their party’s presidential nominee, while at the same time latching on to the anti-Washington sentiment that Mr. Trump has built his political success on. They may be incumbents, their argument goes, but they are the real outsiders in their races. They’re outsiders that use their place in Congress to get things done within the parameters of power. You know, an outsider’s type of insider.
Trump is right about Bill Kristol. Nobody has been more wrong, more consistently. An embarrassed loser. The only bigger losers are the people who keep putting his stupid loser face on TV every week.
“To be near her is to feel like the campaign is in steady hands; to be at any distance is to fear for the fate of the republic. […]”
Both these perceptions are true and are not mutually exclusive. A steady hand on the status quo is continued decline.
“When I asked her why she thinks women’s ambition is regarded as dangerous, she posited that it was about “a fear that ambition will crowd out everything else — relationships, marriage, children, family, homemaking, all the other parts [of life] that are important to me and important to most women I know.”
Nonsense. Maybe some Republican men do, but real men don’t fear ambition in women. The problem with Hillary’s ambition is which of America’s problems she chooses to focus her ambition on, and which she ignores.
Not everyone is as evolved as you. I’d say at least 28% of liberals who include “gender equality” as an espoused value harbor unspoken fears related to their loss of status.
I’m 63% sure that my 28% guess is at least 30% correct.
I feel Hillary has been to the crossroads and sold her soul to the 1% in order to reap the electoral benefits of being the “women’s rignts” candidate. Same for immigration.
I’d say 28% sounds about right (okay, I think it’s higher!). And that’s due to the patriarchy – men belittling other men about their “loss of status” – it’s the equivalent of, “Look! A girl beat you!”
I write about feminist issues and I’m constantly surprised by some of the views expressed by progressive/liberal men. It has improved, so that’s great.
“men belittling other men about their “loss of status”
I only know of that viewpoint from news accounts of fringe white supremacist groups. Who else are you attributing that view to?
Come on, puck. This thing you do where you pretend to never have heard about something is getting silly.
If everybody is supposed to know about it, how come nobody can come up with a link? Actually from what you say, there should be lots of links. Here’s a start:
https://www.google.com/#q=men+loss+of+status
A few articles but nothing like a significant phenomenon. Maybe you are reading scare articles about the “men’s rights” subculture and are pretending it is more widespread than it is?
Love this line from First Read:
“here’s the reason why Clinton needs to beat Sanders in California next week: She doesn’t want to give him any legitimate rationale to remain in the race beyond June 7 or June 14 (the final primary in DC). Because… the moment Sanders exits the race, her poll numbers against Trump will increase.”
So much stupidity in one little paragraph.
First, Bernie Sanders already has no “legitimate” rationale for remaining in the race, and indeed there’s little sign that a loss in California will make any difference in his behavior. “Legitimacy” is always in the eye of the beholder, and in case nobody has noticed, Hillary’s pretty lousy at pretending to be above whatever fray she’s in next. In large part, that’s because she’s not a good liar. When something bugs her, it’s pretty obvious.
Second, if the bounce from Bernie quitting is inevitable, what difference does it make when he exits the race if she gets the bump no matter what? So that reason is clearly a lie, because there’s no advantage to getting the bump now instead of after the convention. The whole point of such a bump is that it’s temporary. Who cares when it happens?
And what’s with the deal about “turning to the general”? Is the candidate incapable of dealing with two issues at once? That could turn out to be a problem when it comes to job performance, no? Presidents either multitask or they’re Ronald Reagan.
So, according to many of her supporters (not necessarily those here at DL), Hillary is unbeatable, yet the simple lack of support from Bernie Bros could cause her to lose.
Which is it? This is like the GOP attitude about Obama — he’s incompetent, except when he’s an evil genius.
From Puck’s link:
“The human male is a hierarchical animal, whether we like it or not. Wherever men get together — in the military, the church, secret societies — they quickly arrange themselves vertically. I would even go further: without such an arrangement, men are miserable.”
To me it stands to reason that a woman in the hierarchy is inherently unsettling to some men. After 100,000 years of behavioral evolution, It isn’t something to be ashamed of, it is just a fact.
“The human male is a hierarchical animal, whether we like it or not. ”
And the human female is not? LOL. After Hillary fixes the human condition in her first 100 days, can she please do something about those damn tides?
“To me it stands to reason that a woman in the hierarchy is inherently unsettling to some men.”
Maybe, but I don’t know any. Like I said, perhaps some fringe wackos believe this as part of their wacko philosophy. But is is not something to present as a major Presidential issue.
@puck: You’re right, of course. Eight million years of hominid evolution have been overturned in a generation, and all it took was women pointing out that men were dickheads.
Just because you don’t know it’s there doesn’t mean it’s missing.
You’d think Hillary would be tougher on that bastion and treasury of white male dickhead privilege, Wall Street.
First Read? From Chuck Todd? Really?
🙄
Ground zero of the bullshit media narrative and somehow it is Hillary that is the liar here. Hillary knows better than Chuck Todd does about what a legitimate rationale for staying in the race. She’s paying less attention to Bernie than the media is, who badly want their Democrats in Dissarray narrative to be true. Which is sort of a shame, because Bernie could have used this attention six months ago.
I’m surprised that the ideology chart shows Jack Kemp as more conservative than Bob Dole. I always thought of him as more moderate.
Right, puck. You don’t see these things, but you did see, and comment on, how women, not men, interrupt more. So… you do see some things.
@a “So much stupidity in one little paragraph.”
My thoughts too, and pretty much along the same lines. This seems to be the press trying to make it exciting, when it’s not.
Sanders is going to keep on making trouble until the press stops reporting everything he says and does. I think that he’s intoxicated by the attention.
And so it seems to have everything to do with the media, and little to do with Sanders calling it quits…
That is the relief that California will hopefully bring… with press losing the ability to prop up a dead campaign and pretend it’s still alive, like the Monte Python parrot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
And it looks like it’s going to be Northern California vs. Southern California.
Oh, and it’s Rebecca Traister, not Traitor. That was a Freudian slip by whomever compiled the DK roundup this morning.
“but you did see, and comment on, how women, not men, interrupt more.”
OK, what game are you playing today, pandora? That’s the second unsupported claim you have made in this thread. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, etc.
https://www.google.com/#q=site:delawareliberal.net+puck+interrupt+women
@LE: I don’t know what press you’re reading that’s still paying attention to Sanders at this point, other than to cover his horse-race maneuvers. Salon is the only place (beyond comment sections) still trolling for dead-enders.
But Bernie will go away eventually, so why fret about when that happens? When he does, she’ll get the bump.
I think people are depending too much on past events to predict future ones here. In an age when a large viewing audience for the most popular non-special-event TV programs is 10 million people, the old schedules for when to do this, that or the other thing are meaningless.
Meanwhile, here’s a story that I think is being underplayed relative to the impact it will have on the race:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-camp-concedes-its-low-on-money/article/2592501
“I’m surprised that the ideology chart shows Jack Kemp as more conservative than Bob Dole.”
You have just identified why all such exercises are nothing but click bait. The results all depend on what the definition of “conservative” is, don’t they?
For example, would Delaware icon Bill Roth be considered a moderate because he was a strong conservationist? He was further right than most of the GOP of his day, but on that issue he voted with the liberals. So what is he?
It’s as if they are trying to measure three-dimensional objects using only two dimensions.
Also, when I said Hillary was not a good liar, I meant she can’t hide her annoyance about Bernie very well. The lie I cited about believing that rationale for wanting Bernie gone was not Hillary’s but the author’s (if it really was Chuck Todd or just an intern). It wasn’t in quotes, so I never meant to suggest it was Hillary’s lie. My bad for being unclear.
^^I should have noted that rant was more about having to live though the villagers and their CW for another political season, when it seems clear that most of them are rehashing much of their stuff from 2008. Chuck Todd is a particular bete noir. And Cokie Roberts.
How cool is this: Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.
That is cool. Now we just need the Clean Energy Jobs Lobbying power to ramp up to the fossil fuel level.
Anyone who has watched Barney Frank’s critique of Sanders on television would be lying if they merely described it as “agressive.” “Malovolent” is more apt. Frank loathes Sanders. I suspect in part because he says correctly that Dodd-Frank is inadequate to protect the America people. Glass-Stegal is also needed. Of course what isn’t being said is how Hillary is deliberately thumbing her nose to Sanders by recommending Frank for that role. She meant it to spite Sanders. That’s obvious.
Delaware has Bloom Energy and how awesome has that been for us!
“he conviction that I was in the presence of a capable, charming politician who inspires tremendous excitement would fade and in fact clash dramatically with the impressions I’d get as soon as I left her circle: of a campaign imperiled, a message muddled, unfavorables scarily high. To be near her is to feel like the campaign is in steady hands; ”
So all I read there is that the Clinton Campaing is out of touch with reality? Which would be fitting for the establishment of both parties. Out of touch and back slapping each other all the way to the bank
Sorry, puck. I was referring to this thread and your response to a link in the comments. So, no game playing.
Apology accepted.
The PEC has a new article on the general election.
“State-poll snapshot: Clinton 336, Trump 202 EV; Meta-Margin +4.2%”
http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/EV_histogram_today.jpg
It basically says that if the election were today, Hillary would get 336 EVs, about the same number that Obama got vs. Romney in 2012, and with a winning probability of more than 99%.
It also says that her current level of support would need to drop by 4.2% for the election to become a 50/50 toss-up.
Another interesting tidbit:
“So state and national polls are perfectly matched at the moment.”
That seems like a bad omen.
For comparison, Obama was only ahead of Romney by 1.8%(Huffington) or 2.5%(RCP) on June 1, 2012, and even less than that against McCain on June 1, 2008.
And so the bottom line is that Hillary is in a rather good place and that it really is her race to lose…