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.