Not Breaking: Carney still running on “I’m a decent fall back for people who liked Beau” platform
This is getting ridiculous.
If the Clinton campaign decided to plant a story to amplify the credibility-enhancing potential of a Warren pick to grieving Sandernistas, this is pretty much how it would read: The dozens of big-money donors all insisted on anonymity because “they feared Warren’s wrath”; they warn that a Vice-President Warren could jeopardize a deal on their preferred version of corporate tax “reform”; they suggest Warren doesn’t feel “comfortable spending time with the rich people you need to raise money from"; and they say there is a “chance for much better relations between business and the White House than during President Barack Obama’s tenure” — a tenure that was so unfriendly to business, it featured the bailout of the financial sector, a “free trade” agreement that actually offers trade protection to well-connected American industries, and a cabinet staffed with no small number of former Wall Street executives — but not if Warren is in the White House serving as the wet-blanket-in-chief.The set up is that Wall Street says don't pick Warren and then Hillary says Screw You, I'm Picking Warren. There is no better way to prove her independence from Wall Street to Sanders supporters. In my mind, there is no way this story from Politico is not directly from the Clinton campaign. And to me it signals that Warren is definitely the VP pick.
While the media has called the Democratic race all but over, the supporters of Sanders are faced with a difficult decision. The mainstream opinion is for them to simply surrender to the “inevitability” of Clinton’s victory and embrace her as a candidate to unify the Democratic Party. However, for many progressives this option is both ethically and tactically problematic—forcing them into a familiar territory of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Instead they have sought to send a distinct message to the status quo by proclaiming themselves “Bernie or Bust.” Sanders, for his part, is far from willing to go away quietly. While he admits that defeating Trump must be priority number one, he has vowed to continue his revolution to transform the Democratic Party and the country. The immediate goal is to amass enough delegates and momentum to progressively influence the Party’s present platform and future direction. However, is there an alternative option beyond the opposing poles of unity or bust? Is there a way for progressives to find a compromise with the Democratic Party without becoming compromised? The answer may be to fight for a coalition between progressives and the Democratic Party.Well, in any realistic rather than fantastical view of our system of government and elections, the choice is binary. You either vote for Clinton, or you, whether directly or indirectly, vote for Trump. So I am not sure what Peter Bloom is talking about here. Further, the Democratic Party has always been a coalition of multiple groups that agree to come together to vote for a single Presidential candidate. There are trade unions, environmentalists, teachers, African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, liberals, moderates, progressives, etc., etc. The compromising he speaks of happens all the time: trading votes for President for policies. It will happen again in the crafting of the platform. The Democratic Platform will be the most progressive major party platform in all history.
Riverfront Park in Wilmington. Photo by vssimon on Instagram.
Sunset in Rehoboth Beach. Photo by tywilkerson on Instagram.
The Caesar Rodney Monument, in Rodney Square in Wilmington. Photo by xzmattzx.
New Night in Newark. Photo by Phinonwoodside on Instagram.
There's no magic to Trump's political showmanship. The magic we saw through the Spring was a unique bond, a sort of mindmeld of white backlash and derp Trump built on an inspired intuition into the mind of the base of the Republican party. Provocation and offense didn't hurt Trump because ... he was preaching to an audience that yearned for both as positive goods. Campaigning in front of a general election audience today it's all working quite differently. Over the last two days I heard report after report from our team on Capitol Hill about Senators who were refusing to answer questions about Trump, simply walking away when asked about him, or in a growing number of cases, after his harrowing and unhinged speech on Monday, openly attacking him. [...] A month ago Republican elected officials were unenthusiastically but resolutely rallying around Trump. Since then they've slowly been reduced to a public and political version of a family dealing with a hopeless addict or a degenerate gambler. They keep saying, insisting he'll change, only to have him provide more evidence he can't, won't and has no intention to. Their very indulgence seems to prompt more unbridled behavior. The disgraceful way Trump handled the hours after the Orlando atrocity seems to have confirmed for many Republicans that Trump will never change or pivot or whatever other phrase we're now using. It's not an act. It's him. How this couldn't have been clear months ago is a topic for the psychology of denial and wishful thinking. But now it seems clear. [...] The question is how long this can last. Pretty much daily, major Republican leaders don't just disagree with Trump but denounce him in pretty round terms, even as they remain at least nominal endorsers of his candidacy and accept him as the leader of their party. That is entirely unprecedented in modern American political history. It doesn't seem sustainable.