The December 31, 2016 Thread

Charlie Cook: “In short, at least a size­able num­ber of Amer­ic­ans are quite hope­ful that things will get bet­ter over the next year, at least in part be­cause of Trump’s elec­tion. It also might be worth not­ing that the sur­veys showed that much of the op­tim­ism was among older Amer­ic­ans. With the stock mar­ket run­ning pretty much at re­cord highs since Novem­ber, and older Amer­ic­ans gen­er­ally more in­ves­ted in the stock mar­ket than young­er people, this op­tim­ism may be re­lated to or caused by the mar­ket’s per­form­ance.”

“But it’s not quite clear which is the cart and which is the horse. Are people feel­ing bet­ter be­cause the stock mar­ket is do­ing well, or is the stock mar­ket do­ing well be­cause people are feel­ing bet­ter, or maybe both?”

Important warning by Post editorial board that hard questions about Trump's enthusiasm for Putin must be answered. https://t.co/vKAIpQflHO

— David Ignatius (@IgnatiusPost) December 31, 2016

Politico: “Pete Buttigieg, the mayor here who national Democrats often mention on the shortlist of rising stars in the party, said he is nearing a decision about whether to run for DNC chair and would step down as mayor if he were to win the job.”

“If Buttigieg does decide to jump into the race, he would be joining Rep. Keith Ellison, New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley, South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison, Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Idaho Democratic Party executive director Sally Boynton Brown in the field.”

Good. More younger voices. The Baby Boom Generation, the worse generation in all world history, has lost its right to govern.

Jeff Stein with more on the DNC Chair election:

The 2016 Democratic primary between Sanders and Hillary Clinton saw major substantive divides; there were huge and obvious gaps between the candidates over taxes, foreign policy, healthcare, and a host of other critical policy issues.

The race for DNC chair, by contrast, has become largely a power struggle between factions — but one lacking a clear contrast of ideas.

Many Democrats skeptical of Sanders have rallied behind Tom Perez, one of the most progressive members of the Obama cabinet. Making Perez the alternative to [Minnesota State Rep. Keith] Ellison may be intended as an olive branch to grassroots progressives. But it could also backfire badly, by exacerbating Sanders’ allies distrust of a party that needs their support now more than ever. […]

The DNC chair position looms large — perhaps larger than it should — in the minds of Sanders supporters. Many Sanders supporters believe that former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz helped stack the deck against Sanders — and that this was a key reason Sanders lost the primary.

Few people outside the hard-core Sanders circle think this is true, but to an extent that’s the point: precisely because many Democrats think Sanders supporters overstate the institutional power of the DNC chair, this is a smart concession to make to them. Putting an unassailable Sanders ally at its helm is an easy way to demonstrate that the party is reformed and no longer “rigged” — especially if you don’t believe it was ever rigged in the first place.

The most obvious alternative to a stalwart progressive like Ellison would have been for Sanders’ critics in the Democratic Party to elevate a standard-bearer of the party’s more moderate wing. Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander, for example, ran far ahead of Hillary Clinton in the red state and would have been a plausible centrist alternative to Ellison.

Instead, Ellison’s strongest opponent looks to be Perez. Four Democratic governors are backing him, he’s received endorsements from a few labor unions, and some Sanders allies, bolstered by reporting from the New York Times, feels the Perez boom is being fueled by Obama’s political team — though the White House denies this.

But Perez doesn’t present much of an ideological break from Ellison. He was an ardent foe of the Iraq War within weeks of it being declared; he has longstanding connections to the labor movement and the “Fight for $15” minimum wage campaign; he’s widely considered Obama’s most liberal Cabinet member; union leaders have loved his work.

Nor are their stated agendas, both geared toward more comprehensive and more granual organizing, particularly different. Perez calls for a DNC strategy in every zip code, while Ellison has called for one in every county.

Fareed Zakaria: “Two decades ago, I wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs that described an unusual and worrying trend: the rise of illiberal democracy. Around the world, dictators were being deposed and elections were proliferating. But in many of the places where ballots were being counted, the rule of law, respect for minorities, freedom of the press and other such traditions were being ignored or abused.”

“Today, I worry that we might be watching the rise of illiberal democracy in the United States — something that should concern anyone, Republican or Democrat, Donald Trump supporter or critic.”

The A-Z of 2017: your essential preview of the next 12 months in pop culture https://t.co/FI1q4ABqBH

— The Guardian (@guardian) December 31, 2016

The Intercept and Young Turks Left now appear to be allies with Trump and Putin. David Atkins:

On December 19th Glenn Greenwald went on Fox News to do what he and his Intercept-libertarian acolytes have done since Trump’s victory: minimize and deny the evidence that Russia was responsible for the hacking of Democratic officials that helped deliver the election to Trump. But why the protestations?

Contrary to the assertions of many Intercept fans, the evidence that Russia was responsible is as damning as it can be in cases of international cyber-espionage. It’s true that it’s possible, as Matt Taibbi suggests, that blaming Russia is a bogus political play. But the Obama Administration has been nothing if not overly cautious in this arena, and flailing desperately and deceitfully isn’t this president’s style. Numerous intelligence services have confirmed Russian involvement, detailing as much evidence as they can without compromising their methods. The New York Times has its own comprehensive report. Russian intelligence services tried to cultivate Donald Trump for years. Donald Trump explicitly asked Russia to hack 30,000 of Clinton’s emails during a July press conference that turned out to be the last of his campaign–showing that at least at the time he believed Russia was behind the Watergate-style theft of private email data from Democrats. And we know that Putin has been openly backing Trump while mocking the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign.

In light of all this, continually and actively denying Russian involvement as Greenwald and crew have done goes beyond Taibbi’s healthy skepticism of government officials and smacks of ideological fervor. Even the Trump campaign has stopped questioning the unanimous judgment of American intelligence services, and moved on to a “who cares?” approach that is already falling apart under pressure and scrutiny. Pretty much only the Russians themselves, the conspiracy theorists at WorldNetDaily and the Intercept libertarians are actively objecting to the evidence against Putin.

For the record, that’s a Goddamn Russian flag. pic.twitter.com/RfZwBwPY7m

— Free Ukraine