Saturday Open Thread, June 18, 2016
Politico: “By reserving time in key swing states — at least Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia — the Clinton camp is sending an unmistakable message to the presumptive GOP nominee that it intends to press into traditionally Republican territory without spending too much time worrying about defending traditionally Democratic destinations where Trump insists he will compete, said a handful of high-level Democrats close to the Clinton effort.”
Reena Flores reports at cbsnews.com that “In the wake of the nation’s deadliest mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, a new CBS News poll has found that a majority of Americans now support a nationwide ban on assault weapons…The survey, conducted in the days following the massacre at a popular Orlando gay night club, shows 57 percent of Americans now favor such a ban. That’s up from 44 percent in December, when the question was last asked in CBS News polling. Now, 38 percent of respondents oppose the legislation, compared to the 50 percent who opposed it in December.”
Mark Murray on Bernie:
But there are still two ways in which Sanders succeeded. One, he performed better than anyone – probably including himself – ever expected, giving Clinton a truly competitive race.
Two, he’s already pushed Clinton and the Democratic Party to the left. Take Clinton opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement early in the primary season, despite her earlier work as secretary of state laying the groundwork for the accord. Or Clinton saying she’d sign a $15-per hour minimum wage bill into law, even though she previously called for $12 an hour. Or President Obama stating he’d expand Social Security benefits.
Yet after those victories, after the final primary results and after Clinton became the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Sanders still marches on. He hasn’t conceded to Clinton or endorsed her. And on Tuesday, Sanders made a series of demands, including:
1. New leadership inside the Democratic National Committee (presumably replacing DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz);
2. The most progressive Democratic platform in history;
3. More open primaries;
4. And eliminating superdelegates in the Democratic nominating system.But the demands on DNC leadership, open primaries and superdelegates seem small. Why call for reforms to processes that you and your supporters deem unfair (rightly or wrongly), while not touching other processes (the caucuses) that benefited you?
Not conceding to Clinton appears even smaller, especially after she became the first female to become the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party.
The failure to endorse or at the very least concede on Thursday was a mistake. Bernie is losing leverage rapidly by the day and he has overplayed his hand. It turns out that Bernie Sanders is not a very good tactical politician, but not many all or nothing purists are.
Greg Sargent tells me to shut it:
Other Democrats argue the same. As one puts it, Sanders’ leverage is “dissipating every day.” I’m having a lot of trouble getting worked up over this.
It is true, as Matthew Yglesias says, that Sanders’s speech did contain some elements that legitimately annoyed Democratic leaders. Sanders did suggest that only he and his movement can ensure that the Democratic Party becomes a “party of working people” and “not just wealthy campaign contributors,” and a party with the “courage” to take on special interests, as if lots and lots of Democrats have not been working incredibly hard for years to pass things like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, and to defend Obama’s actions on climate change. This is of a piece with Sanders’ broader tendency to be too dismissive of the gains of the Obama years, and too simplistic in his accounting for why Democrats did not accomplish more than they did.
On the other hand, Sanders did accomplish a great deal in the last year. If he wants a little time to try to translate that achievement into some form of lasting influence, well, so what?
Rick Klein: “Leave it to this candidate, and leave it to this political year, to create a new variety of candidacy. After his speech to supporters Thursday night, Bernie Sanders is still an active candidate for president. But that doesn’t mean he’s engaging in any campaign activity. He stated clearly that he wants to defeat Donald Trump. But, since he declined to endorse someone (can’t imagine who) actually running against him in the general election, he’s not yet saying how he wants to accomplish that.”
“The broad goals of his ‘political revolution’ – fighting for the working class, galvanizing a generation, even reforming the Democratic Party – might be things that Hillary Clinton and her team can get behind. But coming from a candidate who was beaten by Clinton in every measurable way – and, if the reminder is needed, never wanted to even be a Democrat until a year ago – Sanders is in danger of losing the leverage he accumulated relatively fast. The party would not countenance Clinton doing what Sanders is now; that’s an undeniable fact, as anyone who remembers 2008 would know. The question now becomes how long Sanders can keep his revolution going without wearing out his welcome.”
Sahil Kapur: Sanders’ long refusal to endorse Clinton hurts his leverage.
In his NYT op-ed “Sanders, the Windows 95 of Progressive Politics?,” Mark Schmitt, director of the political reform program at New America, criticizes the economic proposals of Sen Bernie Sanders, but acknowledges “Mr. Sanders’s achievement has been to show the leadership of his recently adopted party that Democrats and many independents under 35 — that is, those who weren’t adults during Bill Clinton’s administration — are eager for a full-throated progressive agenda and are unafraid of backlash. While Democrats in the 1990s — notably Bill and Hillary Clinton — worried about the party’s mistakes of the 1970s, many in this decade worry more about triangulation and the cautious politics of the 1990s.”
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t considering primary rival Bernie Sanders as her running mate, but is actively looking at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose populist politics line up closely with Mr. Sanders,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“The vetting remains in its early stages. So far, potential candidates have been scrutinized using publicly available information. The Clinton team hasn’t asked anyone to submit tax returns or other personal information.”
Other prospective candidates: Labor Secretary Tom Perez, HUD Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and Tim Ryan (D-OH).
The race is between Warren, Kaine and Becerra.
This election is developing something of a signature: Each and every day, Donald Trump says or does something horrible. Democrats have their squabbles, to be sure, but have now basically settled into a normal pattern. The final primary vote was completed on Tuesday, and now Hillary Clinton is laying the groundwork for what will undoubtedly be a very boring and cautious campaign.
Trump, by contrast, is constantly getting massive attention for being a deluded, ignorant, racist maniac. He combines an unprecedented facility to manipulate the modern media environment with gutter bigotry and a complete lack of policy knowledge. If elected, he would almost certainly displace Andrew Johnson as the worst president in American history.
Vanity Fair: “Trump is indeed considering creating his own media business, built on the audience that has supported him thus far in his bid to become the next president of the United States. According to several people briefed on the discussions, the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the ‘audience’ currently supporting him. He has also discussed the possibility of launching a ‘mini-media conglomerate’ outside of his existing TV-production business, Trump Productions LLC.”
“He has, according to one of these people, enlisted the consultation of his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who owns the The New York Observer. Trump’s rationale, according to this person, is that, ‘win or lose, we are onto something here. We’ve triggered a base of the population that hasn’t had a voice in a long time.’”
Journalists have begun a debate amongst themselves and with their audiences about the best way to cover Donald Trump, and there’s an assumption running through that debate that I want to challenge. Many seem to believe that the kind of unvarnished coverage Trump has received, particularly on cable news, is a great and undeserved favor the media have done him.
But is that really true? Might it be that the most compelling case against Donald Trump is Donald Trump himself?
Let’s start with this. It’s fair to say that in the last couple of days, Trump’s reaction to the Orlando massacre got lots of media attention, and President Obama’s reaction to Trump’s reaction got even more. Hillary Clinton’s reaction got relatively less attention. But a new CBS poll released today showed that when people were asked whether they approved of how the three responded, the differences were striking. If we take the net approval (percentage approving minus percentage disapproving), Obama came out at plus 10 (44-34), Clinton was at plus 2 (36-34), and Trump was at minus 26 (25-51).
So Trump got plenty of coverage for his response, but it only served to turn Americans off.
This “anonymous” official quoted by Politico sure sounds like Donald Trump:
The Trump campaign would not comment on the record about its relationship with the RNC. One Trump Tower official called it “a great relationship. I work well with everybody over there, and I haven’t heard of anyone who doesn’t have a great relationship with them.
“With congressional leaders once again at a stalemate over how to respond to a mass shooting, the Senate’s most moderate Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, is developing a compromise measure that would prevent some terrorism suspects from purchasing weapons, while sidestepping partisan flash points that have doomed similar legislation in the past and threaten to do so again next week,” the New York Times reports.
“The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has already scheduled votes for Monday on four proposals — two sponsored by Republicans and two by Democrats — but all four are expected to fail in a nearly identical replay of votes last December after the attack in San Bernardino, Calif.”
Donald Trump’s campaign schedule “is being driven by his fund-raising needs, prompting him to appear in heavily Republican states like Georgia and Texas and diverting his attention from battlegrounds where Hillary Clinton is spending her time,” the New York Times reports. “Mr. Trump’s aides, scrambling to raise money to compete against Mrs. Clinton’s cash juggernaut and extensive donor network, have scheduled fund-raisers in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Texas this week.”
We are witnessing the most incompetent Presidential campaign in all history.
At a House conference meeting, Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) read from a Bible verse that calls for death for homosexuals shortly before the chamber voted to reject a spending bill that included an amendment barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Roll Call reports.
“Passages in the verses refer to homosexuality and the penalty for homosexual behavior. ‘And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet,’ reads Romans 1:27, which Allen read, according to his office.
Republicans only care about the gays when they want to exploit their deaths for their own benefit.
“Lawyers for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump are intensifying their drive to make sure the public doesn’t see videos of Trump’s recent testimony in connection with class-action fraud lawsuits over his Trump University real estate seminar program,” Politico reports.
“In a court filing late Wednesday night, Trump’s attorneys argued explicitly for the first time that the deposition videos should be kept under wraps because they would become weapons in the ongoing presidential contest.”
Amy Walter: “To those GOPers still thinking/hoping that Trump will ‘get the message’ and suddenly become a more focused and disciplined candidate, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Here’s the deal, Trump is not going to change. Ever. This is the candidate who won the primaries. This is the candidate you are going to nominate in July. And, this is the candidate who you will have to decide to support or not in November. There’s simply no other option.”
Clinton is not automatically entitled to Bernie’s endorsement to burnish her coronation. The correct framing is “Clinton fails to win Sanders endorsement. ” He presented a list of Democratic values to Clinton, and she was apparently unable to get on the same page.
For anybody who is still baffled by Bernie’s “end game,” he put it on an even lower shelf Thursday night:
And for those who tut-tut about Bernie’s support of downticket Democats, he pointed out the obvious:
I am calling bullshit on this from Mark Murray:
Hillary isn’t fooling anyone with her tactical and temporary retreat on TPP. Nor is she fooling anyone with her weaselly “I’ll sign $15/hr if it is presented to me.” Will she “fight for” the defeat of TPP, and the renegotion of NAFTA and other agreements? Will she “fight for” a federal $15? Her positions on those are weak, like Obama’s support for a public option.
Nobody is voting for Hillary because they actually think she will block TPP or fight for $15.
Leverage is perishable commodity and the timing for its use is paramount. When the endorsement process culminates in the penultimate endorsement – the President, all other endorsements (except maybe the nomination of Clinton at the Republican convention to thwart Trump) are OBE. As many players of Survivor have found out, after a certain point an idol not played is a piece of junk. Or as colloquially written – you snooze, you lose.
I’m guessing that Sanders’ non-endorsement is a strategy designed to keep the campaign alive while morphing it into a real revolution. Or to put it another way, he can’t be bothered with an endorsement because he has bigger fish to fry. The problem is, perception always rules and the perception is that he has lost any leverage he had and it looks sort of petty to not endorse, but it’s really too late now because it appears that his endorsement is not needed as long as Trump continues to be Trump.
I often express concern about things, but I rarely predict outcomes, but here is one prediction. Considering the news cycle and the focus on the general, we will not see much more in the news about this from now on, because Trump is sucking all the air out of the news and the opposition has been waging effective attacks on all things Trump which is using up the remaining oxygen.
It’s not about “leverage” for immediate transactional gain. If Bernie endorses Hillary without policy concessions, the moment he does he loses credibility on those issues. I would prefer to see Hillary earn Bernie’s endorsement, but if she can’t then it is far more important that Bernie preserve his credibility. You can’t speak truth to power if you have endorsed power and its methods.
True and what I am saying is that Clinton has no need of his endorsement any longer and therefore no need to provide concessions. Clinton will attempt to win over Sander’s supporters directly – if at all. Sander’s had leverage. That leverage is gone. We’ll never know if he could have parlayed that leverage into concessions. The issue is moot.
It is moot for the moment, but the fact is around 40% of Dem primary voters supported Bernie and his agenda over Hillary. Nearly all Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary, but they will remain discontented. Treating the younger half of your base as “moot” is no way to unify a party.
When it comes to legislation, instead of reaching out to form a coalition with progressives, she is likely to modify legislation to reach out to Repubs and DINOs and her corporate donors, as we saw with the public option.
Hillary will likely win due to Republican incompetence, but she has cemented herself firmly in the old guard.
I voted Bernie and have long since moved on. My positions weren’t formed by him, just represented by him better than they were by Clinton. They won’t change when she is elected, and I will continue to applaud decisions I would agree with and attack those I wouldn’t.
She is the old guard, but so is he in his own movement. The task for those to the left of Clinton is to identify the next unifying figure for another assault on the old guard.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-rich-drug-test-000000565.html
Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., unveiled Thursday the Top 1% Accountability Act, which would require those claiming itemized deductions of more than $150,000 on their tax returns to submit to drug tests or file for less generous tax deductions.
The proposal is a shot across the bow at Republican governors in states, including Moore’s home state of Wisconsin, that require the recipients of certain welfare benefit programs to be drug tested in order to remain eligible to receive assistance.
Ok. But, I think I’ll just set my sights on eliminating the carried interest loophole, which is estimated to generate $17B in revenue and for which Clinton claims she will accomplish by executive action if Congress doesn’t pass legislation. I know, I know I always default to realism and pragmatism over the nonsensical. It’s the cross I bear.
This is new and encouraging (thanks to Dave for pointing it out) and,, depending on details, is a far more concrete example of moving to the left:
New, encouraging, AND doable!
Here’s what I love about the Politico article (other than the GOP in disarray vibe):
So he’s lazy. Or he hates GOP big donors.
Or, he hates rejection.
There’s not going to be policy concessions from the Hillary camp. Probably plenty of platform concessions, but most of us know no candidate has to run on their party’s platform. The longer he stays in and the longer the polls look good for Hillary, the less leverage Bernie has.
In many ways, this is part of this campaign’s incompetence. Howard Dean transformed his campaign to Democracy for American pretty quickly. And I am sure that the candidates that Bernie is going to support now would have loved that support in the heat and light of a Presidential campaign. Dan Fetterman, for instance.
In much better news, though, < a href="http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/06/16/new-leadership-at-the-dnc/">Debbie Wasserman Schultz is now just a figurehead at the DNC. Brandon Davis, the National Political Director at the SEIU was selected by the Clinton campaign to run the day to day operations.
The Democrats make nice on fringe social issues then ignore the real economic change needed to rebuild the middle class that the democrats stood by and watched go away. There’s been no challenge to tax cuts for billioaires, no attempt to punish CEO’s for taking jobs out of the nation for child labor and unregulated everything. No one is talking about the funding issues of Social Security and medicare regarding getting more from monied people. Bernie is one of the few.
How many schools, bridges, airports and roads could we build with that 17 billion. And there’s billions everywhere in the budget that is targeted to the 1% and the merchants of death of course.
“There’s not going to be policy concessions from the Hillary camp. ”
No problem for Hillary. If she won’t form a coalition with progressives, she can always triangulate with Republicans. Savor the victory!