Friday Open Thread [7.29.16]

This is absolutely devastating. I cried throughout the presentation and the speech.

First Read says the Democrats won the convention wars: “Hillary Clinton’s speech Thursday accepting her party’s presidential nomination was OK; she is never going to rhetorically outshine President Obama or her husband Bill Clinton. But what she and Democrats did achieve was produce a powerful convention that contrasted with Donald Trump’s last week in Cleveland.”

“While the GOP convention had high-profile no-shows (the Bushes, Mitt Romney, John Kasich) and a speech by a candidate who didn’t endorse Trump (Ted Cruz), the Democrats trotted out Obama, Bill Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama, and yes Bernie Sanders, who all testified on Hillary Clinton’s behalf. While the GOP convention focused on police, the Democrats featured both police and the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Sandra Bland. And while the GOP convention highlighted the violence that immigrants had committed and Benghazi, the Democrats introduced Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim-American Army captain, who delivered arguably the week’s most stinging critique against Trump.”

“In totality, the Democratic convention itself was flawless — with two exceptions: 1) the Debbie Wasserman Schultz mess; and 2) the few dozen Sanders delegates who disrupted Clinton last night. Taken together, the two conventions matched the persona of their nominee: Cleveland was chaotic; Philadelphia was disciplined.”

BILL! God, he was made for GIFs. pic.twitter.com/ljwZkxmaJy

— Allison Rockey (@AllisonRockey) July 29, 2016

Politico: “Clinton’s team accomplished many intermediate goals during their four days in Philly: The Obamas delivered a husband-and-wife tandem of historic speeches; Bernie Sanders went from being a renegade to a team player – helping to stamp out the last glowing embers of the revolution he sparked in New Hampshire; Clinton was applauded by several dozen speakers (led by her husband) who sought to reverse her negative image.”

“And none of that matters, not one bit, if Clinton can’t reverse Trump’s recent surge in the polls with a discernible convention bounce. She won’t get the 14-point boost her husband got in 1992, but she’ll take anything that moves the dial, that is to say roughly the recent average uptick of three or four percent.”

The next president—and her husband. pic.twitter.com/W5A0rHs21y

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 29, 2016

Josh Marshall:

I thought this was a very good speech, well-crafted, well delivered. Clinton seemed a touch off balance at the beginning. I wasn’t sure if she was unsettled by scattered heckling or simply needed to get her footing. In any case, she managed to get that footing in fairly short order. My first takeaway is what she didn’t do. She didn’t ‘relax’ or ‘stop shouting’ or ‘show a softer side.’ She gave a politician’s speech with a politician’s demeanor, which was entirely fitting. That is who she is. That’s what she’s doing. It worked.

There was also chatter to the effect that she needed to ‘address the email issue’, either in a literal discussion of it or in some roundabout discussion of trust. Other than some very oblique references to being in the public arena for decades and not being a natural politician, she did neither. The speech was unapologetic and straightforward. Again, good.

[T]he presentation – a persuasive message about who Clinton is – sets the terms of the election clearly. A lot of this election really is about Trump. That might be disappointing in a way, as though he’s stealing the moment to make it about something as petty as he is as opposed to something more grand. But Trump isn’t some accident. He’s the culmination of an immense tide in our politics in the last decade or two. He’s just the catalyst for what was almost inevitably coming. He never pivoted. He organized a convention and continues to campaign as essentially an ethnic nationalist candidate. If he wins that will be validated. The speech writers wanted to make a “moment of reckoning” the fulcrum of the speech. They did. Because that’s what it has become.

Real talk: That was the most effective speech I've ever seen from Hillary Clinton. #DemsInPhilly

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) July 29, 2016

Holly Otterbein of Philly Mag says Hillary nailed her speech:

You could feel the soaring hearts of grandmothers, single women and little girls witnessing history being made. You could feel the clenched shoulders of thousands of people terrified of a Donald Trump presidency. You could feel the left, still stung by Bernie Sanders’ loss and alarmed that a four-star general had earlier in the night said, while vouching for Clinton, that America “will have the finest weapons!” if she wins. (“This is the strangest RNC I’ve ever been to,” said someone next to me.) You could feel the out-of-place conservatives who had just awkwardly, if earnestly, stumped for her. You could feel Boomers waxing nostalgic for the 1990s Clintons, and/or trying to shake off their baggage. You could feel the potent words spoken moments prior by a Muslim American whose son had died serving the country — to Trump, he said into the camera, “You’ve sacrificed nothing” — reverberating in so many heads.

And whether you were in the room or on Twitter, you could feel America figuring out how it feels about a woman potentially leading the free world. In real time. At certain moments, that reckoning was both excruciating and empowering for women around the country.

Almost as soon as Clinton started talking, a small handful of loud people — presumably Bernie supporters who planned to stage a “citizens’ arrest” of Clinton Thursday night — started booing her. She continued speaking. They booed some more. And more. And more. I tried to put my finger on why it was so cringeworthy. Perhaps because it’s hard to imagine the same thing happening to any serious male candidate today, no matter how moderate or hawkish or disappointing to liberals? Perhaps because it felt like every time a man has spoken over a woman?

Tim Kaine is just lettin' loose! https://t.co/LIFy6wWHVG

— Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) July 29, 2016

With the Democratic convention a stunning success, in presentation, production, substance and ratings, Donald Trump disavowing any responsiblity for the low rated chaotic disaster of a convention he personally producted, telling the New York Times, “I didn’t produce our show — I just showed up for the final speech on Thursday.” Well, he showed up Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday too. And he produced it. God, he is such a fucking liar.

Bill Clinton is just having a fucking ball. #DemsInPhilly pic.twitter.com/qTutnsfZCN

— Ryan Parker (@TheRyanParker) July 29, 2016

John Judis:

I am not a big admirer of Hillary Clinton as a pure politician, but I thought she did very, very well last night. Her speech was brilliantly crafted — a credit to her speechwriters — but after some fits and starts, she delivered it superbly. No wooden laughs or phony heartiness. Yes, it was the usual list of “to-do’s”, but it fit how she had been presented to the convention: as someone who would know what to do, and would get it done. I have four observations, only one of which is critical…

Yoni Appelbaum, writing in The Atlantic, highlights the reaction to Clinton’s nomination among the younger generation:

Women now occupy a broad range of business, professional, and civic positions. But in politics, as in most other fields, it gets narrower toward the top. Not quite one in three local and county officials is a woman, but only one in four state legislators, one in five members of Congress, one in eight governors. And no presidents. […]

“I want to see Hillary and to see her speak and to see her get nominated,” said Lila Hutchins, [a] 10-year-old. It was important, she said, “because if she’s the first woman president then there’ll probably be other ones.”

Her 6-year-old sister, Mae, broke in excitedly: “I know I will be one!”

She beamed up at me, and I believed her.

Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast:

If it’s Morning in America today, it’s a Democratic one. The Republicans are now the party of permanent midnight.

I don’t know that I’ve ever heard thousands of Democrats chant “USA! USA!” Certainly not in the 1970s, which is what gave Reagan his opening. This week, though, the Democrats have chanted it over and over.
It’s been a beautifully stage-managed convention. This isn’t my spin, this is an honest reaction to what I’ve watched. It has surprised me consistently every night, from a party that hasn’t usually done this all that well. And the reason it’s been well stage-managed is that it hasn’t been just Democratic elected officials who’ve sung from the hymnal. It’s been Americans.

Brian Beulter on Hillary’s plan to beat Trump:

The question is how she intends to do it. What kind of campaign will she run? She answered that question Thursday night. […]

The implicit theme of the convention’s final night was that Americans shouldn’t see the election as a contest between Democrats and Republicans, but between responsible citizens and Donald Trump. Reagan Republicans and devout Muslims on one team; Donald Trump and Scott Baio and the sewer scavengers of right-wing talk radio on the other.

“A man you can bait with a tweet,” Clinton said in her peroration, “is not a man you can trust with nuclear weapons.” This is indisputable. But has Clinton chosen the most surefire way to keep them out of his hands? [..]

The truth, though, is that this debate is unnecessarily binary [this maximal inclusive strategy v. labeling Trump a Republican]. Elections are state-based as much as they are national, and there is nothing stopping the Clinton campaign, buffeted by Obama and her other top surrogates, from running an inclusive campaign, while Democratic congressional candidates drape their opponents’ Trump endorsements around their necks.

And the larger point is that coalitions aren’t normally built on unforgiving honesty. In an ideal world, Clinton would trounce Trump, extending her coattails all the way down the ballot, to capture Congress as well, leaving Republicans branded as the Trump party for a generation. That outcome is still possible, but it can’t be pursued in a way that makes the risk of defeat unacceptably high. Clinton’s primary imperative is to prevent Trump from winning, even narrowly, and that in turn means leaving a door ajar to Republicans who can’t reconcile themselves to Trump’s nomination.

Clinton showcased on Thursday night what a campaign like that looks like: a maximal coalition to defeat a maximal threat.

Conservatives know the Dem convention was a disaster…. for the GOP.