Sunday Open Thread [7.24.16]
Politico has a must read it all story about the Clinton VP process. It has interesting nuggets about how Castro dropped out of favor because he was openly and privately campaigning for the job, about how Ed Rendell pushed Vilsack (God, how that guy’s political instincts have fallen apart) and how James Carville was pushing Elizabeth Warren (which garners him more respect from me), and about how Hillary sat each candidate down (Warren, Perez, Vilsack, Kaine and Castro), sang their praises and then asked “why do you want the job?” Like a normal job interview. Also, how Kaine called Bernie Sanders last night after the call from Hillary. Read the whole thing.
Dylan Matthews on Tim Kaine the Ally.
To many on the left, Tim Kaine’s selection as the Democratic VP nominee was disappointing more for who Kaine wasn’t than for who he was. Kaine beat out Julián Castro and Tom Perez, either one of whom would’ve been the first Hispanic person on a national ticket ever. He beat out his Senate colleague Cory Booker, who’d be the first black VP pick, and only the second black politician on a major-party national ticket. By picking Kaine, the grievance goes, Clinton chose to try to reassure white voters at the expense of better representing the multiracial coalition behind the Democratic party.
Judging by Kaine’s debut as running-mate in Miami, FL on Saturday, the Clinton campaign is keenly aware of this critique, and eager to answer it. Kaine’s speech seemed tailor-made to try to persuade the Democratic base that this white dude from a purple state with a fairly centrist track record is nonetheless an ally, nonetheless gets it.
Booman has thoughts:
Everyone has people they’d like to see as vice-president or possibly president some day, and it’s understandable to be disappointed if none of those people were just elevated. And, from an ideological point of view, it’s perfectly sane to feel let down if the candidate doesn’t line up with your views on some important issues. What I’m less tolerant about is the idea that this choice doesn’t make strategic sense because it doesn’t please you or fit your theory of how to win presidential elections. It may not take the party in a direction you wanted to see it go. That does not necessarily mean that it wasn’t a very solid strategic decision.
I’m humble enough to realize that the strategy here is excruciatingly complicated, and this decision had to be made in the most uncertain environment we’ve seen since at least 1968. I can make a case that this is a base election where the most important thing is to rally the enthusiasm of your core voters, and I can make a case that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to grab huge chunks of the middle and create a Goldwater/McGovern landslide, and the best way to do that is to make it as comfortable as possible for people to crossover from the center-right.
What I can’t say with much confidence is which theory is true, although, contrary to what most progressives think, the latter move is the bolder one with more risk and a higher payoff. Secondly, progressive outcomes come more surely from large majorities (e.g., the Blue Dog dominated 2009-2010 years) than they do from a smaller more ideologically pure party (e.g., every year since 2010).
Clinton will get more progressive stuff done if she owns the House, and guess what kind of districts she needs to win to pull that off.
The New York Times has a great interactive diagram (at the bottom of the page) that illustrates Donald Trump’s challenging path to the presidency. By letting you choose the outcome in the 10 most competitive states, it becomes very clear that Florida is the key to victory for Trump. Without it, it’s nearly impossible for him to win.
When Hillary Clinton wins, and Tim Kaine becomes vice president, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) will get to appoint someone to the U.S. Senate.
Politico: “The buzz in McAuliffe land is that he can appoint a placeholder, like the 77-year-old Chuck Robb, or someone who is a longer-term option like Rep. Don Beyer, Creigh Deeds, Attorney General Mark Herring or Anne Holton, the education secretary who is also Kaine’s wife. Tom Periello, a one-term congressman who is now at the State Department, could also be an option. McAuliffe WILL NOT appoint himself, sources close to him say.”
.@mtomasky is right: This was a stellar debut: https://t.co/lfZSVuw86z
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) July 23, 2016
Kaine brings down the house in Miami https://t.co/ReQWuO3nik
— Karen Finney (@finneyk) July 23, 2016
Jonathan Chait on the progressive critics of Tim Kaine:
The left does have reality-based reasons for its dismay. There are aspects of Kaine’s record and beliefs it has reason not to like. At the same time, the complaints with Kaine suffer from a certain myopia that seems to be symptomatic of the hothouse atmosphere that has developed on the left during the Obama era. And emphasis on doctrinal purity blotted out broader assessments of personal fitness — the absence of ideological dissent overwhelmed the presence of positive qualities. The prevailing definition of a perfect leader has become a perfect follower.
The left has focused on three main complaints against Kaine. First, he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Kaine claims to oppose the current version, which is also Clinton’s position, and which I likewise dismiss as completely disingenuous pandering.) Second, despite his sterling voting record from Planned Parenthood, Kaine is a Catholic who personally opposes abortion, a view that has influenced some of his decisions around the margins of the issue, such as approving the sale of a license plate saying “Choose Life.” Third, he has lobbied to free smaller banks from the requirement in the Dodd-Frank financial regulations that they report their liquidity daily. […]
Obviously, if you consider the Trans-Pacific partnership an economic calamity, or deem anybody who doesn’t like abortion a moral monster, these issues will be serious, and even disqualifying, blots on Kaine’s record. I doubt many of the disappointed liberals actually believe these things. So why should his record on these issues loom so large? I don’t want elected officials to let interest groups pressure them into taking positions that are contrary to the public interest, and some of Kaine’s stances might (again, depending on your point of view) be taken to indicate that he is too transactional, and not enough of a conviction politician.
But there is nobody in public life who can escape such flaws. Contrast Kaine with Elizabeth Warren, who is the liberal beau ideal of an uncorrupted idealist. Warren has lobbied, at the behest of medical device manufacturers, to eliminate the tax on medical devices in Obamacare — a position that I’ve seen no serious economist or policy wonk defend. She also opposes the “Cadillac tax,” the cap on the tax deduction for the most expensive employer-provided health insurance. This stance also flies utterly in the face of expert opinion (as Sarah Kliff explains). But it endears her to many unions, some of which have negotiated expensive health insurance plans. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also both have called for a repeal of the Cadillac tax. The endlessly-recirculating list of ideological failings by both candidates almost never includes this important capitulation, which would undermine one of Obamacare’s important achievements in cost containment.
The point? No one is pure. Let’s look at the whole board, please.
I cannot think of *any* national-level debut that has gone better for figure getting first worldwide exposure than this is going for Kaine
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) July 23, 2016
Digby on the bigger story of this election — the collapse of the conservative movement:
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/22/the_beginning_of_the_end_trumps_nomination_signals_the_collapse_of_an_ideological_movement_and_a_political_party/
On Kaine, I must assume that the lamentations that he’s not leading the ticket will begin any day now.
I hear a lot of talk about how the media could bring down Trump, but let’s face it, they have reported on every bit of the obvious bullshit.
What they must do now is explore more deeply the connections between Trump and Putin. Russian money is backing these far-right parties all over Europe, and Russian money has been keeping Trump businesses afloat for a while now.
I realize the white supremacists are just fine with Putin — check out how white he is! — but the old white guys who just hate Hillary tend to also hate Russia. I think that could peel away enough votes to make it a landslide.
Have you read Josh Marshall’s article. Wow.
I don’t mind Kaine being opposed to abortion provided he is probirth control and sex Ed.
That IS a must-read article. Must admit, didn’t know about that connection, but if the D’s don’t hang Trump with it, it’s political malpractice.
How hard is it for someone at the convention to say:
“NOW we know why Trump loves Putin. The guy’s bankrolling him!”
Here’s another in-depth piece on the Trump campaign’s Russian ties:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html
Is the Putin connection another reason he isn’t releasing his taxes?
That would be my guess, Jason. El Som, Josh Marshall’s article spells out the connection too! Thanks for the link.
So Meet the Press do a segment on the wikileaks DNC emails that prove the DNC was in the tank for Hillary from the beginning, and this fucking hack Chuck Todd decides that he will briefly brush aside the fact that he himself received emails from the DNC on the subject as they run the credits and play the closing music.
Hey, Chuck Todd. You disclose the fact that you are part of the story before you start discussing it, right?
……This is why I don’t look to the television set for information.
We can agree on one thing. Chuck Todd is a hack.
Ugh. Chuck Todd.
FBH, are you supporting Trump?
I’m supporting anybody who can keep the Clintons out of the White House.
That’s some weak minded shit from FBH. Totally predictable.
He’s voting for Trump. Not exactly a “country first” sorta guy.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. (FWIW)
“I’m supporting anybody who can keep the Clintons out of the White House.”
@FBH So you are voting for Trump. To you he is the lessor of two evils? Really? I mean really? I’d respect a position of not voting, or voting for the Greens, or even writing in Cruz, but Trump? Even Cruz stuck to his principles.
Principles are fundamental truths or propositions that serve as the foundation for one’s believe system, behavior, or chain of reasoning – even when those principles are inconvenient. I’m not sure what you call your beliefs, but they are not principles.
It has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Hillary lied to the American people and family members of those killed in Libya. She lied for pure political benefit. That doesn’t bother anybody here? Is this putting your “country first”?
I still have yet to hear one explanation of why this shouldn’t concern Hillary supporters.
Mainly because it *hasn’t* been proven. Even all of the fake Congressional Hearings couldn’t prove that she was responsible.
This is you letting Fox News tell you what to say again.
@fbh “It has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt…”
No it hasn’t. The Benghazi committee came up with a big nothing. They couldn’t even make the “she lied” stick. Pathetic…
Go ahead and chant “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” as much as you want. It has no affect on the truth or on anyone who actually thinks.
She has become rich by peddling influence. By selling influence to countries who treat woman like property, and kill homosexuals….That doesn’t seem to be a problem either, right?
@fbh “That doesn’t seem to be a problem either, right?”
Your thinking that it’s true might be. Seek help (or just stop watching really crappy news sources).
“Mainly because it *hasn’t* been proven. Even all of the fake Congressional Hearings couldn’t prove that she was responsible.
This is you letting Fox News tell you what to say again.”
Responsible? I’m not talking about who is responsible. I’m talking about the lie about the video which has been proven by Hillary’s own correspondence to others.
I personally think she is responsible, but that’s beside the point.
…and another thing… I don’t give a shit about Fox News.
Look, I provided articles on yesterday’s open thread; one from the Huffpo, and another from some Harvard guy, and nobody even bothered to respond.
Let’s just face it. You are all in a big vat of Kool-Aid performing a synchronized swimming routine while little fountains of Kool-Aid tinkle from your mouths.
Hey fhb… How do you like supporting Putin’s little pet? You know, the one with the orange fur and the little golden leash who spouts off despotic stuff just like Putin’s parrot.
@fhb “I’m talking about the lie about the video which has been proven by Hillary’s own correspondence to others.”
Sorry. Never happened. That’s partly why the Benghazi committee was such a disaster for the Repubs. They couldn’t even show that.
Hillary was the one who touted the “reset button”. I thought she was Putin’s buddy.
And I guess the video thing is settled then too. Hillary never blamed the attack on a video ….don’t believe my lying ears, right.
@fbh “Hillary never blamed the attack on a video…”
You’re changing your story…. The LIE was never proved. Repeating a CIA pronouncement is NOT evidence of lying. Can you see the difference? or is that too complicated for you??
@fbh “Hillary was the one who touted the “reset button”. I thought she was Putin’s buddy.”
Nope. Putin is in the tank for Trump and is busy ratfucking as hard as he can. Who do you think stole and leaked all the DNC emails??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE
Ha!!! …talk about a weird and non sequitur response.
What do you mean I’m changing my story? Hillary certainly did LIE. She stuck with the story about the video long after she privately was telling people that it was terrorism. She even personally lied to the families of the people who were killed in the attack….. Oh,and that’s Obama being “Putin’s little pet” BTW.
And here’s an example of the Clinton’s influence peddling….Who’s putting America first?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
What’s really troubling about Trump is that he’s so obviously bullshitting, everyone, all the time. And people not only ignore it, lots of them are ready to buy it.
Someone needs to check the batteries on America’s bullshit detector. I think they’ve expired.
@fbh: Nobody fucking cares. The Republicans have nominated a fascist. Hillary Clinton is just a crooked politician. There’s a hierarchy of evil, and you seem to be looking at it upside down.
Seriously, fella, where are your values? I think you left them somewhere else. Why don’t you go find them?
The Republicans have nominated someone who is not a Clinton or a Bush…now why don’t you go find YOUR values, fella.
You’re in our house. Be polite or get out. Actually, I’ve read your empty-headed nattering for years, so you might as well get out now.
My values are to stamp out fascism wherever it rears its head. If that means you, well, your choice.
I’d even vote for a Bush before Trump. Among decent people, that’s unanimous. Among morons, not so much.
Check the archives — I’m no Hillary lover. But I can’t stand stupid, and brother, you’re bringin’ it.
Here’s how stupid you are: You like to brag you don’t watch Fox, but you make all the same points they do. You’re too dumb to realize you’re just getting it second-hand.
@fhb “Hillary certainly did LIE.”
Go and read the many official reports. Lest you be called the liar.
Trey Gowdy couldn’t even get that claim to stick. You’re both abject failures.
Get stuffed anonymous….and that’s the first and last rude thing I’ll ever say on this blog….smell ya later.
So if the Fox News mouthpiece, FBH is really gone, how about this to add to the Putin story:
How Putin Weaponized Wikileaks to Influence the Election of an American President
@fbh: More upside-down values: Impolite is, to you, worse than ignorant.
Back to my point: How can anyone not see Trump is full of shit? This is a Jason-style serious question.
“CNN reported Sunday that the DNC Rules Committee has rescinded Wasserman Schultz’s position as convention chairwoman. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) has been named as her replacement.”
Because everybody loves fudge.
TPM has an AP report that DWS is stepping down after the convention (where she will be roundly and lustily booed.)
And DWS resigns, will relinquish her position at the end of the Convention.
Donna Brazile will take over as temp chair.
Donna Brazile should gavel the convention open. But all and all, not a huge upgrade. I hope she doesn’t get the job permanently.
This should be worrisome: this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to grab huge chunks of the middle and create a Goldwater/McGovern landslide, if only because of how well those landslide victories ultimately worked out for LBJ and Nixon.
While I think the entire superdelegate program should be scrapped since many of them pledge their support before the primaries occur (effectively signalling the establishment choice to the electorate before they vote), this will be a better arrangement than the current one:
http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-dnc-superdelegates/
Early entry for the roundup: Michelle Goldberg tries to find the source of Hillary Hatred, a seach akin to looking for the source of the Nile:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/the_people_who_hate_hillary_clinton_the_most.html