Saturday Open Thread [7.23.16]
TODAY IN ORLANDO. #Hillary2016 #Pulse #DemsInPhilly pic.twitter.com/SjLn7pxcqf
— JoeMyGod (@JoeMyGod) July 22, 2016
DR Tucker at the Washington Monthly on Kaine:
While I anticipated that […] Hillary Clinton would select a running mate more admired by the progressive wing of the party, I have no grievance with her selection of Virginia Senator Tim Kaine as her partner.
Yes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in some quarters because Caine is viewed as the ultimate centrist. [But] as Evan Popp notes, Kaine’s record is not nearly as offensive to progressives as is commonly assumed.
Kaine has assured Clinton he will oppose TPP https://t.co/T8FaNTAPQO via @mmcauliff @samsteinhp
— Amanda Terkel (@aterkel) July 23, 2016
Martin Longman says Hillary lowered the temperature of this election:
My immediate take is that Clinton just took the heat of this election down a notch. She didn’t look to polarize it further by picking a liberal firebrand or try to win some demographic arms war by responding to Trump’s anti-Latino legions with a Latino running mate. She didn’t pick someone who can throw bombs with Trump, like Al Franken.
She went with steady, likable, qualified, compatible, and uncontroversial. Kaine can tick off a lot of boxes, too. He has the unusual ability to disarm detractors with his faith. His religiosity invites people in without putting them off. He’s bilingual and fluent in Spanish, and he has experience living in Honduras as a missionary. He’s well-liked by both labor unions and business interests, making it just a little easier for Clinton to capture the monied interests from Donald Trump at minimal cost with her base or as the cost of winning their support. He has more executive experience (as a mayor, lieutenant governor, governor, and head of the DNC) than any of the names that made it onto Clinton’s short list. He’s extremely well-liked and respected by his Republican colleagues in the Senate. […]
He’s not going to excite people, but people will like him. And he can do the job if he’s called to do the job.
The idea here, beyond just personal comfort on Hillary’s part, is that Trump’s only chance to win is to polarize the electorate along racial lines while holding most of the conservative electoral coalition in place. This pick hurts Trump’s efforts in two ways. It doesn’t attempt to play some demographic game to counter a spike in white support for Trump. Rather, it turns the heat down a bit racially. It also makes it a lot easier for anti-Trump Republicans to find some comfort level with going over to Clinton. It’s a comfort level that would be lacking if she had picked Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken.
This will probably get lost, but it shows what kind of leader @HillaryClinton is in selecting one of @POTUS's first 2008 supporters.
— Graeme Crews (@GraemeCrews) July 23, 2016
Ed Kilgore says Kaine is safe and boring in a good way:
For all the talk of Kaine as a sort of political wallflower, he is actually an estimable man who has won losable campaigns in a state Republicans may need to win this year. He has a reputation as being ethically spotless, which matters a lot this year — any hint of scandal in a running mate could be disastrous for Clinton. As has often been noted, he is fluent in Spanish, which is not only a good weapon in a campaign against Donald “Deport ‘Em All” Trump, but a sop to those who were disappointed that the Veep was not Hispanic.
Despite the pushback from progressive Democrats when Kaine emerged as the front-runner for this gig, he’s by no means some sort of warmed-over Blue Dog. He’s a career civil rights lawyer in what was then a pretty conservative state — let that sink in for a bit. He was also the mayor of a relatively large and diverse city. He was elected governor despite an opponent pounding him relentlessly for a faith-based opposition to capital punishment, and he was smart and agile enough to turn the issue around and make it a positive. These are all good signs of both Democratic orthodoxy and political dexterity.
The one issue on which progressives have asked very legitimate questions about Kaine involves another faith-based position: his “personal opposition” to abortion. He’s been about as clear as possible in recent weeks that he’s firmly and comprehensively pro-choice, as he would absolutely have to be in a Hillary Clinton administration where the president is not exactly going to have to consult him or anyone else on this issue.
Hillary Clinton's pick of Tim Kaine tells you she is very confident about her chances of winning https://t.co/cr27bzEjKr
— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) July 23, 2016
Kaine SUCCESSFULLY took on NRA in a gun state, smoking in a tobacco state, climate change in a coal state. #ProgressiveWhoGetsResults
— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) July 23, 2016
Harry Enten says Kaine is a mainstream Democrat.
The average Democratic vice presidential nominee since 1976 scores a -33 and the median scored a -38. Perhaps it shouldn’t be too surprising that Clinton, who is running as the heir to Obama, selected a vice-president whose ideology is very close to that of Biden. (Biden’s average across the three metrics is a -38.)
The risk in Kaine is that he doesn’t excite the base. Clinton still has some problems with former Bernie Sanders supporters, and Kaine probably isn’t going to make them go gaga, unlike Elizabeth Warren, who averages a -67. Kaine is actually closer to the middle than Clinton is. He’s already getting hit from the left for his vote to fast-track approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
Indeed, Kaine is unlikely to excite anyone at this point because he isn’t well-known. Just 40 percent of Americans can form an opinion of him in an average of recent Marist College and YouGov surveys. That puts him close to the average of previous vice presidential picks.
“A 14-year-old was robbed of an expensive belt in Dover. Police said the teen was walking through a park on the southwest corner of Division Street and Park Drive Wednesday, July 20, 2016, at 5 p.m. when a man and a teen ripped off the teen’s Louis Vuitton belt. Those belts retail for at least $350. ”
I find that hard to believe. He was wearing a belt?
Meanwhile, has anyone read about the Wikileaks cache of DNC emails? I don’t recall anyone here actually defending Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, so nobody will have to eat any crow, but it seems everything the left was saying about her was actually true.
An interview with Gabriel Sherman, the reporter who broke the Ailes-is-out story, on the future of Fox News. Like me, he thinks the ouster spells the end of Fox News as we know it. Key line: “Fox, whatever it becomes, is going to be very different. …. Fox exists as a megaphone to broadcast Roger Ailes’ master narrative about American politics.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/07/gabriel_sherman_on_roger_ailes_trump_and_the_murdochs.html
Fox exists as a megaphone to broadcast Roger Ailes’ master narrative about American politics.
For anyone who thinks Trump supporters can be brought back to reason, consider what happened when HuffPo asked Trump supporters, “What if she wins?”:
“[Hillary Clinton] will continue the destruction of America,” said Paul Braswell, a rancher from central Texas. “She will continue radicalizing Muslims, moving them here, and then letting them attack us, and go, ‘Oh, it’s because the police are bad people.’”
So much for the ability for abstract thought. It’s like an episode of “Drunk History,” except these people aren’t drunk.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-republicans-afraid_us_57926972e4b01180b52ee802?section=
The status quo in America is a slow glide path to the bottom with the rich getting richer and the poor/insecure increasing in numbers, with the resulting social problems increasing not decreasing. Hillary’s proposals are not radical enough; she will slow but not reverse that trend.
Hillary will in fact continue the destruction of America but not for the reasons the Trumpies think. At least she will do it much slower than Trump, so she remains preferable to Trump. I miss hope and change.
Yeah, it wasn’t so much the destroying America part that revealed the incapacity for abstract thought.
Anonymous, your take on Fox News is interesting. I know that the Murdoch kids are not as conservative as their father, but do you think that Ailes’ minions there aren’t capable of carrying on? I mean, Fox News makes a bunch of money for the parent company. Hope you’re right, though…
“Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy under Gaddafi, to US-NATO Sponsored Terrorist Haven”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-wealthiest-democracy-under-gaddafi-to-us-nato-sponsored-terrorist-haven/5482974
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
“Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html
Nice to learn from the hacked DNC emails today how the DNC worked with Hillary to steal the nomination for her. But who cares, right? We leaned that votes don’t count in 2000, anyway. Only money counts, and she makes $200,000 an hour from Wall Street.
How does it feel to know your candidate cheated to win the nomination?
She doesn’t have to cheat. The sycophants do the dirty work for the Clintons, and let’s be honest…there are many people who don’t care how she does it, as long as she sticks it to the opposition .
…And now, your moment of Zen….because you need it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5TGMx_xkFs
@D “Nice to learn from the hacked DNC emails today how the DNC worked with Hillary to steal the nomination for her.”
Pure BS. The emails you cite were all apparently in May AFTER Sanders had lost. You’re looking at a staff trying to figure out how to push Sanders off the stage after they believe that he already lost.
Find and post just one email from 2015 or first quarter 2016 that supports your case, and I’ll concede the point. But until then, you’ve got no story. All you’ve got is BS.
Oh.. and don’t forget about the possibility of ratfucking by Putin. You do know that all these emails came through him. He’d never do anything underhanded to help his good old buddy, Trump, now would he ::wink wink wink::
@LE unsure if you would have seen my replies in other thread, sorry for reposting here.
“In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.” – DNC Charter. Does the fact that Sanders’ name only appears in a handful of emails prior to the first primary votes, while there are many e-mails about Clinton, not show a lack of “evenhandedness?”
Furthermore, a DNC staffer apologized for comments he made in an e-mail that was leaked. This gives legitimacy to these documents
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/top-dnc-staffer-apologizes-for-email-on-sanders-religion-226072
“Nice to learn from the hacked DNC emails today how the DNC worked with Hillary to steal the nomination for her.”
Clinton, a Democrat, got more votes from members of the Democratic Party. That’s how she won. I didn’t get to vote for Clinton because I am not a member of the party under whose banner she ran. She also won because she was not very progressive which is in line with the majority of the party and America.
@MK “Does the fact that Sanders’ name only appears in a handful of emails prior to the first primary votes, while there are many e-mails about Clinton, not show a lack of “evenhandedness?””
I’m not sure. Clinton had a large staff, Sander’s didn’t.
Were these many emails driven by campaign staffers (or responding to them)?
Bottom line… Simply counting emails is a bad way to prove your case.
I’d like to see a “caught red-handed” email from 2015… Until then, claims put forth by Disappointed are just disappointing.
Here’s a good list of Putin leaked emails that purport to show bad DNC behavior.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-bernie-list-directory-photos-most-damaging-worst-rhode-island-delegate-fec-jvf/
Take a careful look. Exclude those from when AFTER Sanders lost (i.e. anytime in May or June). Why? The DNC has a legitimate role in getting defeated candidates off the stage.
So.. Look at the rest… a bit of smoke.. No fires. If this is all they’ve got, it’s a non-story (or should be).
Why isn’t the chairman of the DNC going to speak at the DNC convention? That seems odd doesn’t it?
Because Hillary wants to win. It would only be odd if she were on the speaker list.
FBH is concern trolling, but as usual he doesn’t understand the point. No one cares about DWS. We’ve been very clear on that point. Don’t let her speak, fire her. No one here cares. And we felt this way long before now.
Wait a sec. I care. I want her fired. And not for the primary.
No argument from me. She’s been a disaster. Should have worded my comment better – FBH thinks we care – that DWS being fired (not speaking at convention) is a way to divide us. He’s so wrong, but it makes sense. His side still employs Reince Priebus. Who looks more like a Dem plant every day. 😉
She was actually fired some time ago. The new interim/acting chair, Brandon Davis, has been on the job for weeks now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/brandon-davis-dnc-224440
She wasn’t fired. She still has the title. But, yes, Davis is responsible for day-to-day operations.
If there’s an acting chair, you’ve been fired. All that’s left is the title, the transition and the usual effort of trying to not show that you are changing horses mid-stream. I would expect that DWS will be even more scarce for the next few months.