Wednesday Open Thread [8.24.16]

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–Reuters/Ipsos–Clinton 45, Trump 33
MISSOURI–PRESIDENT–Monmouth–Trump 44, Clinton 43
UTAH–PRESIDENT–PPP–Trump 39, Clinton 24

Since his disastrous ABC News interview about the Khan family days after the Republican convention, Donald Trump has only appeared on Fox News, the Huffington Post reports.

“His retreat to Fox News is a remarkable change in strategic focus, having earlier pledged to win the election based on his skill at generating free media coverage… But it appears that he’s now calculated that the risk of venturing too far from the conservative-leaning network is too great. In June, 18 of Trump’s 29 interviews across six networks were on Fox News, according to additional research provided by Media Matters. In July, he did nine interviews on Fox News and just six combined across ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC. None of these networks have had him on in August.”

Hillary Clinton's recent announcement about the Clinton Foundation means that she's learning: https://t.co/ubHQs6vhGQ

— Vox (@voxdotcom) August 23, 2016

“The Clinton Foundation is preparing to scale back operations and hand off nearly all the ongoing programs that make up the organization’s work around the world, following a months-long internal effort to plan for Hillary Clinton’s possible election,” BuzzFeed reports.

Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton “outlined plans underway to find new homes for existing programs, speaking at points in deeply personal terms about his work for the last 15 years, according to an account of the 30-minute meeting, provided by a participant.”

Nancy LeTourneau at the Washington Monthly has two posts on the Clinton Foundation that you should read: Beyond the Headlines about Emails and the Clinton Foundation and Some Facts about the Clinton Foundation.

Sean McElwee’s piece at Salon titled “Research shows Democrats are better for the economy — so why do voters trust Republicans more?” merits a thorough read from all Democrats concerned with crafting a stronger message that defines their party.

“Instead of bashing government and praising “job creators” Democrats must espouse a narrative that places the government and the safety net as a core component of economic growth. Such a narrative would emphasize the important ways that government creates the environment for growth, with infrastructure investment, science and technology research, education, childcare, healthcare and a safety net as a backdrop… As my colleague Tamara Draut argues, a better framework would be bottom-up: emphasizing that the working class is an engine for economic growth, and as long as they are left behind, our society struggles…An economic system that allows all Americans to flourish is the path to prosperity. But Democrats have to embrace the public sector, instead of austerity.”

Laura Clawson says that Donald Trump won’t let go of Hillary’s main weakness in his eyes: that she is not a man.

Andrew McGill of the Atlantic says hard hit industrial towns in the Midwest are not voting for Trump.

When Michigan Republicans went to the polls in March, economists expected to see huge Trump turnout in areas with the most shuttered factories. Instead, they got the opposite: Trump’s support was strongest in towns that had gained manufacturing jobs. He did about 20 percentage points worse in areas where layoffs were most intense. It was completely the opposite of what everyone expected.

Earlier this month, Gallup economist Jonathan Rothwell published a working paper expanding the Michigan analysis to the entire country. This time, he used opinion poll results instead of vote totals, making the data more current. Rothwell found the same trend: Trump did worse in towns that lost manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2007, and better in areas that gained them. Indeed, Trump is most popular in prosperous areas. Apparently, economic pain doesn’t guarantee votes for the Republican nominee, and economic success is no guard against him.

I’d argue the real dividing line is optimism. Consider this: Two-thirds of Hillary Clinton’s supporters think the next generation will be in better shape than we are today, or least the same, according to Pew Research. The reverse is true for Trump’s camp. Sixty-eight percent of his supporters think the next generation will be worse off. What’s more, the vast majority of Trump voters say life is worse today for people like them than it was 50 years ago. Only two percent —two!— think life is better now and that their children will also see improvement.

How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America https://t.co/08zo6wSACj

— Vox (@voxdotcom) August 23, 2016

Ryan Cooper illuminates “Hillary Clinton’s Southern strategy” at The Week:

“…Turning out Democrats in record numbers could change the party’s fortunes in the South…Probably the key demographic to focus on is young voters…If Clinton is to take any of these states, young voters (and their more left-wing ideas) are where to start…Southern people need federal government help more than most. Most of the states that refused the Medicaid expansion in ObamaCare are in the South — where people are disproportionately poor and hence could qualify for coverage. Clinton winning these states could mean Democrats taking control of the state government, and giving health insurance to millions of people at a stroke — at virtually no cost to state governments either…And, of course, a disproportionate fraction of those poor Southerners are black. More than half of African-Americans live in the South — and more are moving there over time…Trump’s omnishambles campaign might just give them [Democrats] the opening they need to start rebuilding the party and contesting elections where liberal policy is most desperately needed.”

Josh Marshall on the Immigration chaos behind the scenes in the Trump campaign:

It sounds like what happened is that the campaign thought they had some way to square this un-squarable circle but then realized it simply wouldn’t fly. Was it shot down by white nationalist immigration hawk supporters like Sessions and former Sessions staffer turned in-house Trump ideologue Stephen Miller? Was it CEO Steve Bannon? Was it simply a canvass of a broader range of high profile supporters which made it clear it wouldn’t fly? Jettisoning mass expulsion would be met cheers by establishment Republicans so they certainly wouldn’t have been the problem. And who was pushing for some change? Again, Conway is the most logical person. Is this the first coming to blows between Conway and Bannon? Who knows?

Would Trump himself flip on something so basic to his message? My sense is that Trump has fairly deep hates and grievances and feelings in the moment but doesn’t really believe much of anything. His principles are self-interest and opportunity. If he could pull it off it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see him just forget about the immigrant expulsion. You have to be familiar with a certain kind of sales person to get this. It was just a sales line. Deport them all; deport some; deport none but make them wear signs that say “kick me”. Whatever. I don’t think Trump has any deep ideological commitment to any of this, though I think he feels it deeply when he says it.

I suspect strongly that the campaign abruptly canceled this speech because they realized that they haven’t come up with a way yet to do the impossible: jettison the core message of his campaign without appearing to do so. So they’ll keep trying.

Republicans hold House seats in 28 congressional districts that Obama won in 2012 and Dems need a total net pick-up of 30 House seats this year to win back the critically-important Speaker’s gavel. At Daily Kos, Stephen Wolf explores ways to determine the percentage margin of victory Hillary Clinton would need to give Dems a good chance to flip majority control of the House back to Democrats, and comes up with a qualified estimate of 7-8 percent.

Brian Beutler says there is no way out of this mess for Trump or his Republican Party:

If after losing in 2012, Republicans had abandoned supply-side orthodoxy, they could have appealed to a multi-ethnic coalition of working-class voters on a pocketbook basis. If instead they had helped shepherd immigration reform into law, it would have been a powerful gesture to immigrant communities, but one which allowed them to continue to speak to nativists concerns: With these new tools, we can stop new immigration, protect you from bad guys, and move on to cutting funding for all social moochers.

Instead they did none of the above. Republican elites outed themselves as consorters, creating a perfect foil for Trump. In that role he has whet the GOP base’s appetite for a more undisguised form of white identity politics. And as we’re seeing, there is no way to build a national coalition on promises to satisfy that kind of craving. Trump can’t hack this problem.

But when he loses, those appetites will remain unsatisfied. After November, it will be time for another autopsy, but the options Republicans had before them in 2013 will no longer be available.

Vanity Fair media writer Sarah Ellison tells The Takeaway that Donald Trump has had private discussions with his inner circle about “how to monetize” the new audience he’s built up.

Markos Moulitsas says the Republicans have reason to panic about their downballot situation.

1. Their House fundraising has fallen off a cliff. House Republicans raised just $4.6 million in July, half of what they raised in June. Democrats? $12 f’n million.
2. Senate Republicans raised just $4.2 million in July, compared to $7.5 million for Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats have $31.5 million in the bank, compared to $23.8 million for Republicans.
3. Because of Donald Trump and exacerbated by his claims of a “rigged” election, Republican voter enthusiasm is uncharacteristically down.
4. Dems have opened up a 5-point lead in the generic House ballot, close to the point that overcomes the Republican gerrymander.
5. So yes, the House is in play.
6. That’s why Republicans are reaching “new levels of panic.”

“Donald Trump’s paid campaign staffers have declared on their personal social media accounts that Muslims are unfit to be U.S. citizens, ridiculed Mexican accents, called for Secretary of State John Kerry to be hanged and stated their readiness for a possible civil war,” according to an Associated Press review of their postings.

“The campaign has employed a mix of veteran political operatives and outsiders. Most come across as dedicated, enthusiastic partisans, but at least seven expressed views that were overtly racially charged, supportive of violent actions or broadly hostile to Muslims.”

Nate Cohn: “The Democrats of 2006 did well in Republican-leaning districts with help from scandals that brought down members of Congress who otherwise would have been unlikely to lose re-election. The list is not short: Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Don Sherwood — for starters. Democrats can’t count on the same thing this year, and Republicans in 2010 did not do as well in Democratic-leaning areas.”

“With these underlying advantages, it would not be surprising if the Republican House majority lasted for at least a decade. The structural advantages underpinning it are that strong. The odds of a Clinton presidency are strong, too — and a Democratic White House would probably strengthen the Republican hold on the House, given the tendency for the president’s party to struggle down-ballot. If Democrats are going to retake the House anytime soon, November would probably be their best shot, and as of now it’s not happening.”

Jeet Heer on Trump’s sick campaign:

The bashing of Hillary Clinton’s health does make sense as part of Trump’s modus operandi. It’s part of the same game of dominance politics that he won at in the primaries when he created nicknames like “low energy” Jeb, Lyin’ Ted, and Little Marco. Further, there’s a gender dynamic which Trump might think plays to his advantage: By talking about Clinton as frail, he’s highlighting the fact that he’s a man and she’s a woman, deploying longstanding gender stereotypes. Gendered dominance politics might be the hidden logic of this line of attack, but it still makes little sense politically since Trump’s big polling hurdles are his own reputation for instability (which this type of attack re-enforces) and his unpopularity with women (who aren’t likely to be won over by a heavy-handed appeal to sexism).

While stirring up a bogus Clinton health scare makes little sense as politics, it does fit with the way Trump is returning to his roots as a political entertainer. He first made a splash among Republicans by being an Obama Birther, so now he’s completing the circle by becoming a Clinton Deather. His campaign is demanding Clinton release her medical records, a stunt that recalls Trump’s well-publicized hunt for Obama’s birth certificate. Like his Birtherism, his Deatherism isn’t no much about politics as creating a spectacle. In effect, even before the election is over, Trump is moving into the post-political realm where he’ll safely comment on politics without engaging in it.