Friday Open Thread [6.3.16]
.@HillaryClinton pulling off what no GOP Trump challenger could: Taking him on in a way that makes her seem bigger, not smaller, than he
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) June 2, 2016
Steve Benen says Hillary finally did to Trump what Trump’s Republican rivals couldn’t in her campaign changing blockbuster speech yesterday:
Slate’s Fred Kaplan added, “On each point, she contrasted his flimsy prejudices not only with her own experience and thought-out views but also with the long-standing, bipartisan traditions of American diplomacy. Then she kicked Trump in the shins.”
This was not, however, just a kitchen-sink strategy. The point was to underscore a specific kind of argument: Clinton realizes there may be some Americans who believe we can take a chance with a demagogic reality-show personality making life-and-death decisions in the White House, and yesterday was about making the case that the gamble is simply too great.
It’s why Clinton made multiple references to words like “dangerous” (“Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent”),”risk” (“A Trump Presidency would embolden ISIS; we cannot take that risk”), and “stakes” (“The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels”).
Clinton made Trump look like a bad joke yesterday, but just as important is the effort to plant seeds of doubt in voters’ minds about the Republican candidate representing a genuine hazard to the nation’s future.
For his part, the presumptive GOP nominee struggled to respond because, frankly, no response would do – everything Clinton said had the benefit of being true.
Alex Seitz-Wald says Clinton finally cracked the code:
Hillary Clinton may have cracked the code on how to land a real blow to Donald Trump. He has proven a maddeningly elusive target for Republicans and Democrats alike. But on Thursday in San Diego, Clinton delivered what was easily her toughest speech yet on the presumptive Republican nominee, deploying a potent combination of her well-known policy wonkishness with a surprising dose of ridicule.
“It’s clear he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about,” she urged, and added, “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin.”
Vox: “This wasn’t the restrained, diplomatic Clinton we’ve seen for most of the campaign. This was full-on firebrand, full of righteous rage at the idea that someone like Donald Trump could possibly be president of the United States.”
Chuck Todd: “This speech and overall performance by Clinton is going to quiet the DC-based bed wetters for a bit. Her best campaign moment in months.”
My favorite headline from yesterday, from Daily Kos:
Matt Yglesias says Hillary’s argument against Trump is the one that could deliver a landslide:
Over the course of the past year, Clinton has been talking primarily to Democratic Party primary voters. This argument — and this speech in general — is not one that will be especially appealing to them.
What she’s offering instead is an argument aimed at a much broader audience. It’s an argument that acknowledges, implicitly, that there are tens of millions of right-of-center Americans who’ve never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate but didn’t support Trump in the primary. Clinton is pitching an argument aimed at those people — one designed to offer little ideological or policy content in hopes of appealing to 70 percent of the population rather than 51 percent. […]
In other words, ask yourself: What’s the worst that could happen? Conservative-minded people aren’t going to be thrilled with a Clinton presidency, but they’ve already lived through eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Barack Obama. The country is still standing. With Trump, by contrast, we really have no idea what we’re going to get. […]
This is the best argument to use if Clinton wants to persuade right-of-center voters to cross the aisle and vote for her, stay home, or take a look at Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party.
But it’s not an argument that’s going to warm the hearts of liberals. Pursuing the argument that Trump is simply too risky to serve as president requires Clinton to try to denude the campaign of as much ideological content as possible. Any talk from her side about the big issues and ideas in politics necessarily reminds people that for any given set of big issues and ideas, not everyone is going to agree. By contrast, pretty much anyone can be open to the basic idea that Trump is a loose cannon who doesn’t know much about foreign policy.
Some progressives fear that this kind of campaign means Clinton won’t build a mandate for progressive policy if she wins the election.
The reality, however, is that the biggest objective determinant of how a Clinton administration governs is what happens in November’s congressional elections. Clinton is aiming for a landslide, and if she can deliver one, it will set the stage for a lot of progressive policy — whether or not she talks about it on the campaign trail.
Phillip Bump is on a trolling roll. Today be brings us this gem: Can you tell the difference between a Trump University sales tip and one from a pickup artist?
FYI, @HillaryClinton wasn’t exaggerating about @realDonaldTrump in that speech. All the sources are right here: https://t.co/cnQQpKiwyW
— Jaclyn Friedman (@jaclynf) June 2, 2016
Ramesh Ponnuru of Bloomberg explains how “Clinton can crush Trump with one message” and notes, “Her most powerful message against Trump might be a non-ideological one: His lack of knowledge, seriousness and impulse control make him too dangerous to put in the presidency…That strategy would have room for many specific criticisms of him that fit within the overall message of his unfitness. Instead of presenting his $11 trillion tax cut as a typical right-wing scheme, for example, she could tie it together with his speculation about defaulting on the debt and suggest that he is far more reckless than normal conservatives. (His encouragement of other countries to get nuclear weapons also illustrates this point.) And she would have to outsource some potential attacks to others. Calling Trump a “fascist,” for example, would make her rather than him look wild-eyed.”
Eric Levitz at New York Magazine:
Hillary Clinton’s argument for why she would make a better commander-in-chief than her Republican opponent is fairly simple: She is not an emotionally erratic ignoramus who has praised the Tiananmen Squarecrackdown, refused to issue any plan for combating ISIS, and called on the American military to kill more civilians. On the other hand, she was in the room when President Obama ordered the hit on Bin Laden. And she did a bunch of other great things as Secretary of State. (You’ve forgotten about that Libya intervention by now, haven’t you?)
The likely Democratic nominee laid out this case in exacting detail in San Diego on Thursday. Her campaign had billed the speech as an attempt to paint Donald Trump as “unfit for the presidency.” This is not a terribly difficult task, but she accomplished it with aplomb — deploying the old rhetorical trick of reciting all the insane, mutually exclusive proposals her opponent had improvised over the course of a 12-month campaign.
Progress on fact-checking in chyrons pic.twitter.com/DaPW3SMgU7
— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) June 2, 2016
Your daily reminder that Donald Trump is a racist pic.twitter.com/x3T7gz8tGJ
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) June 3, 2016
Megyn Kelly is legitimately angry here https://t.co/mgu5lB1uWi
— Harry Enten (@ForecasterEnten) June 3, 2016
Her anger would be more, I dunno, legitimate if she did not give a powder puff one long interview to him just last week. Look, EVERYONE knows he is a blatant racist and a dangerous bigot. EVERYONE knows it. Even Megyn Kelly knows it. So if you are a human being, you can’t vote for him.
EVERYONE also knows he is a fascist authoritarian. More proof of that surfaced last night, when Mein Fuhrer Herr Trump held an unhinged rally in San Jose, California. In this video below, which I have timed to started at the 29:21 minute mark to coincide with the start of the Trump rally, Trump arrival on stage was set to the tune of one of Adolf Hitler’s favorite songs, Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries.
Frank Rich on Donald Trump’s no good very bad week:
By any civilized standard, Trump has had about the worst week a presidential candidate could have. He was caught trying to cheat America’s veterans out of the $6 million he had promised them. He nastily assailed the press for daring to question his bogus philanthropy. He not only attacked the legitimacy of the U.S. district judge presiding over the Trump University case, but tried to denigrate him as “Mexican.” (The judge, Gonzalo Curiel, was born in Indiana.) Then there’s Trump U itself: a scam worthy of Bernie Madoff that preyed on victims far more vulnerable than most of Madoff’s clients. And the week is not over. There’s still time for more Trump outrage. Maybe he’ll slap a baby instead of kissing one at a campaign event.
The question remains, however, whether any of it matters to those voters who see Trump as their champion and have stood steadfastly by him even after he previously insulted one of America’s most famous veterans, mocked a disabled member of the press, slimed Mexicans as rapists, and all the rest. We won’t know until November, I’m afraid, if anything will shake their loyalty.
I don’t care about Trump voters. They are a minority of the electorate. I care about idiot purists deciding that they can vote for Trump or not vote for Hillary because their principles are more important than other people’s lives. Because that’s how Trump wins.
Here are some words of wisdom from the great Molly Ivins that seem perfectly suited to our politics today:
There are three things one must not do in the face of electoral disaster. Whine. Despair. Or fall for that specious old radical crap: ‘Things have to get worse before they can get better.’ The only possible response to that one is, ‘Not with my child’s life.’ Nor is it helpful to sit around hoping that given enough rope, the R’s will hang themselves. They’ll hang us along with them. The only thing to do is to fight harder and smarter.
Matt Yglesias “But it’s not an argument that’s going to warm the hearts of liberals. ”
He’s right of course. Liberal hearts can only be warmed by a Sanders or a Warren. That’s the handicap Clinton faces. Fortunately, her speech will warm the heart of many, may, centrists who recognize that Clinton was speaking more about what the President of the United States means to American and the world than any other candidate. And that vast center decides the election.
Liberals will not be happy, but honestly I’ve always thought that unhappiness is a liberal characteristic. Of course I think the same about the hard right. I have a brother who is pretty far on the right. I continue to tell him that he is going to die before me because he has never found a silver lining in his entire life when it comes to government and politics.
The only reason I’m “unhappy,” which is probably too strong a word, is that attacking Trump will not help her. Everybody already knew all that stuff about him.
Give us a reason to vote FOR Hillary. “I’ll fight the GOP” leaves me empty.
@D “Liberal hearts can only be warmed by a Sanders or a Warren.”
Complete BS.
“Liberals will not be happy…”
Really???? If Hillary wins, this Liberal will be very happy.
This hard-core liberal agrees with Hillary on about 90% of the issues.
I’m just not going to let the other 10% make me unhappy. It’s ridiculous.
…especially since that 10% is probably not even achievable within the next few decades no matter who wins.
Wow. Matt Yglesias is dead wrong. If what Clinton is offering “is an argument aimed at a much broader audience. It’s an argument that acknowledges, implicitly, that there are tens of millions of right-of-center Americans who’ve never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate”
.. we are going to lose big.
This is what Democrats always get wrong.
“Pursuing the argument that Trump is simply too risky to serve as president requires Clinton to try to denude the campaign of as much ideological content as possible.”
This amounts to political suicide. There are no non-ideological voters left to appeal to.
And FWIW , all along the way I’ve stipulated that my heart could be warmed by Clinton sounding a little more like Sanders or Warren.
“my heart could be warmed by Clinton sounding a little more like Sanders or Warren.”
Agreed. I’m ready for Hillary to start triangulating with the left instead of the right. But – not just “sounding like,” I want to see some easy-to-make policy changes that would help workers.
@LE “If Hillary wins, this Liberal will be very happy.”
I seem to recall in the big tent thread (May 26) “If you supported Hillary, you answered no to those questions. You did so either because you just went along with the Democratic establishment or because you think no is the correct answer and you are highly questionable as a progressive. Just to baldy deny without demonstrating why those alternatives don’t apply to you, as some did above (see @LE’s response to me as an example) doesn’t get you off the hook. In fact, your bald denials without further explanation arguably indicates that you really don’t have a response and you’ve been caught red handed. ”
But in reviewing that I see it was referencing progressives and since you identify as a liberal, then you can be happy. Still, I’m pretty sure the progressives won’t be happy.
“I’m ready for Hillary to start triangulating with the left instead of the right. But – not just “sounding like,” I want to see some easy-to-make policy changes that would help workers.”
That was never in the cards for the general election and won’t be in the cards during her administration. Left-speak only occurred because Bernie was unpredictably popular. But it will vanish soon. People really didn’t know this all along?
@D “Still, I’m pretty sure the progressives won’t be happy.”
Anyone progressive with decent critical thinking skills will appreciate the result.
The ones who won’t are probably STI.
Got any real issues??
“This hard-core liberal agrees with Hillary on about 90% of the issues.”
Make that “self-identified hard-core liberal.” If you agree with Hillary on about 90% of the issues, you are not what many people would consider a hard-core liberal.
“I’m just not going to let the other 10% make me unhappy. It’s ridiculous.”
If it’s only 10% that’s bothering you, just add a little extra sugar to the Kool-Aid.
“…especially since that 10% is probably not even achievable within the next few decades no matter who wins.”
Yeah, real hard-core.
@a “Yeah, real hard-core.”
You really don’t have a clue, do you?…
And as for the point… Virtually every Democrat celebrated when Obama won in 2008. And virtually every Democrat, Liberal, and Progressive, will celebrate when Hillary wins in 2016.
The old “we won’t be happy” BS is just that… We heard a lot of it in June of 2008 and we’re hearing it again. It was whiney BS back then, and…
I’m sure every Democrat celebrated. We’re talking about liberals.
You are the clueless one. On a global political scale, Hillary Clinton would not be placed to the left of the center. She is unapologetically imperialist, for starters, which is sort of disqualifying if you want to be a liberal or progressive or whatever.
I have no problem with you being a Democrat instead of a liberal. I just want to be sure you realize it.
I have no problem with LE being a Democrat and liberal and happy. It was mostly tongue in check that I said liberals (ok I should have said progressives) do not possess the happiness gene.
@a “On a global political scale, Hillary Clinton would not be placed to the left of the center.”
Per capita? No way. Not even close. Have you ever seen the world? Have you ever been to China or India or Korea or Japan? Have you talked to the people who live there? I’ve been a dozens of times, and I don’t always just talk with the 1%ers there.
“She is unapologetically imperialist, for starters,…”
imperialism — a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military.
That’s basically the job description for our SOS.
Are you suggesting that progressive rulers cannot be imperialist?
Here’s a question for you… How did women in Korea and Japan get the right to vote? Answer: American imperialism.
@Dave: If you look around, you’ll find that few people involved to any degree in politics, either as participants or spectators, are happy. Have you ever heard a politician say he ran for office because he was happy with the way things are?
Per capita? You’re saying I should weigh her positions on a scale of political thought by the current policies of the ruling classes in each country? That’s a new qualification on me.
“imperialism — a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military.”
What a bloodless way of describing American-led multinational corporate domination of the world economy through military power. I would say that it’s a way of extending American economic hegemony on the rest of the world — that is, exploiting the rest of the world. How liberal is that?
“That’s basically the job description for our SOS.”
Again, only if you buy the notion that what’s good for American capitalism should be supported by the American government. And I’m not talking about her job as Secretary of State, but the positions she took then, as well as before and since. She is on the record, many times, espousing use of force in volatile places.
“Are you suggesting that progressive rulers cannot be imperialist?”
Not on a global basis, no, they cannot. From the far leftist perspective, countries are an artificial construct that allows the global rich to manipulate the masses.
“Here’s a question for you… How did women in Korea and Japan get the right to vote? Answer: American imperialism.”
True. But universal suffrage is but one measure of liberalism. We achieved that through coercion which is, ultimately, saying the ends justified the means.
@a “Per capita? You’re saying I should weigh her positions on a scale of political thought by the current policies of the ruling classes in each country? That’s a new qualification on me.”
That’s not what ‘per capita’ means. It means that you weight your analysis by the population of each country. So if Norway is uber liberal and China is conservative… what’s the average of just those two? Answer: Conservative.
You say the world is to the left of Hillary? And I say that just isn’t so. Not even close…
OTOH… If you give each country equal weight in your analysis, and you focus on Europe and totally ignore Africa, then maybe you’re right.