The Clinton Campaign scored a BIG win in the Nevada Caucus primaries last week. In yet another major test of her ability to recover from the massive loss suffered in New Hampshire, Hillary handily won the Nevada contest over Sanders. Even better, Sanders himself had raised expectations by announcing at a pre-election rally that he believed that his campaign would win the contest. He should have learned a lesson from the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire. Their pre-election spin was that a "win" for Hillary would be narrowing the gap between she and Bernie to a single-digit contest. Of course, that set up the idea that if she didn't get to within a single digit loss, the outcome would be a giant loss. And, it was. But, Bernie didn't learn.....
Hillary won the Nevada caucuses by nearly 6 points a single digit win. By all measures, for Senator Sanders, a total unknown in that neck of the woods just a few months ago, to come within 5 or 6 points of one of the best known and recognizable candidates that has ever run for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, would be a real "win." But, in the game of expectations, Sanders comments set the stage for a Clinton claim that the momentum had shifted, as expected, back to her and that there would be clear, if well-fought, and potentially storm-tossed, sailing ahead. With Super Tuesday looming next in line and with Hillary continuing to show strong support in the African-American community, expect yet another strong showing for Hillary next week. As with the Republican Primaries, it is getting harder to see a path for Senator Sanders to derail the march of the Clinton Campaign to the Nomination this summer. The Hillary train is rolling and will pick up steam and speed next week on Super Tuesday. Be there or be square....
Friday, February 26, 2016
SOUTH CAROLINA AND NEVADA.... Fade me......
WOW! Finally, the great cage fighting that we have all witnessed during the Republican debates preceding these primary elections.... did not shake up the Trump train. Instead, Trump, though under heavy attack, seemed to have survived and prospered. The Donald carried all of the South Carolina congressional districts and therefore was awarded every single delegate votes from the South Carolina in spite of endorsements from many SC Republican members of Congress, notably Trey (Howdy) Gowdy, and Nikki Haley, the popular Governor of the state who both endorsed Rubio.
The election did clear the field somewhat with Chris Christie leaving the race and, after spending more than $70 million, Jeb Bush. Bush, the early presumptive front-runner and brother to one President and son to another, with the bulk of the Republican establishment and campaign cash bulging out of two accounts - the direct campaign account and the "Super PAC' supporting Bush, never scored out of the single digits. So much for the role of: 1. the "establishment"; 2. the Bush legacy; and, 3. the influence of cash-in-the-bank.
And, then, there were 5. In order of finish, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Carson. And, in the western contest in Nevada, after yet another bruising debate loaded with personal attacks and insults, Trump again prevails - by an even larger margin - followed by Rubio who gained some space between he and Cruz. Though still close, Rubio has bested Cruz twice now and seems to be gaining ground over the Texas Senator, but not gaining on Trump. Kasich, the most moderate voice on the stage and the only Governor left in the contest came in a distant 4th, followed by Carson. My guess is that Kasich will remain in the contest until the mid-march primaries in the Midwest in the hope of gaining ground on the three front-runners, and staying alive as a moderate and reasonable alternative to the right-wing crowd currently dominating the field. Why Carson continues in the race, is a mystery. I cannot see any scenario in which Carson could prevail in the primaries or at the convention, should a brokered convention be the result of the primary season. Or, is Trump the moderate alternative??????
Trump has taken some unusual policy positions quite different from the others on the stage. These include saying that Planned Parenthood provides valuable and necessary services for women in America. Of course, he stated that he will not provide funding for abortions, mirroring the other candidate positions, and he states that he favors antiabortion exceptions for rape and incest - a position that Cruz opposes. He describes himself as a "deal-maker" rather than a purist advocate of "my way of the highway", he says he "likes" single-payer systems that work in other places, unlike his opponents, he opposes recent trade deals and supports higher tariffs, and opposes any cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and, instead, says that we need to increase benefits provided by these bedrock progressive social programs. It seems that the Donald can say anything at anytime
and grow stronger or, at least, not lose supporter to other candidates. Perhaps we have entered not only an anti-establishment political phase and an "outsider" positive environment, but a post-policy era as well. Or, perhaps the Trump strength results from being a self-funded candidate and appears to be a strong leader, not afraid to speak his mind. Maybe the Republican primary electorate is seeing him as uncontrolled, unbought by Beltway money and influence, and unafraid. At this writing, it appears that, barring some catastrophic event, it is difficult to see how either Rubio or Cruz can overtake Trump in the remaining primaries or how Kasich or Carson can long survive. By the end of this month, look for the field to lose 2 candidates (those in single digits), and possibly 3, if Senator Rubio loses the Florida primary election (notably a winner-take-all election) to Trump. Right now, current poll data reveals that Trump is leading Rubio in Florida and is closely behind Cruz in Texas. With the Texas primary next week, should Trump beat Cruz, the anti-Trump Republican cabal plan could be that Cruz drops out and endorses Rubio before the Florida primary in the hope that at least one of the pair survives to continue the battle. If this sound a bit far fetched, I agree, And, that's why I say that I cannot really see a path for any of the non-Trump candidates to take Trump out as the nominee of the Republican Party.
And, now.... onto Super Tuesday and the thirteen state primaries next week.
The election did clear the field somewhat with Chris Christie leaving the race and, after spending more than $70 million, Jeb Bush. Bush, the early presumptive front-runner and brother to one President and son to another, with the bulk of the Republican establishment and campaign cash bulging out of two accounts - the direct campaign account and the "Super PAC' supporting Bush, never scored out of the single digits. So much for the role of: 1. the "establishment"; 2. the Bush legacy; and, 3. the influence of cash-in-the-bank.
And, then, there were 5. In order of finish, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Carson. And, in the western contest in Nevada, after yet another bruising debate loaded with personal attacks and insults, Trump again prevails - by an even larger margin - followed by Rubio who gained some space between he and Cruz. Though still close, Rubio has bested Cruz twice now and seems to be gaining ground over the Texas Senator, but not gaining on Trump. Kasich, the most moderate voice on the stage and the only Governor left in the contest came in a distant 4th, followed by Carson. My guess is that Kasich will remain in the contest until the mid-march primaries in the Midwest in the hope of gaining ground on the three front-runners, and staying alive as a moderate and reasonable alternative to the right-wing crowd currently dominating the field. Why Carson continues in the race, is a mystery. I cannot see any scenario in which Carson could prevail in the primaries or at the convention, should a brokered convention be the result of the primary season. Or, is Trump the moderate alternative??????
Trump has taken some unusual policy positions quite different from the others on the stage. These include saying that Planned Parenthood provides valuable and necessary services for women in America. Of course, he stated that he will not provide funding for abortions, mirroring the other candidate positions, and he states that he favors antiabortion exceptions for rape and incest - a position that Cruz opposes. He describes himself as a "deal-maker" rather than a purist advocate of "my way of the highway", he says he "likes" single-payer systems that work in other places, unlike his opponents, he opposes recent trade deals and supports higher tariffs, and opposes any cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and, instead, says that we need to increase benefits provided by these bedrock progressive social programs. It seems that the Donald can say anything at anytime
and grow stronger or, at least, not lose supporter to other candidates. Perhaps we have entered not only an anti-establishment political phase and an "outsider" positive environment, but a post-policy era as well. Or, perhaps the Trump strength results from being a self-funded candidate and appears to be a strong leader, not afraid to speak his mind. Maybe the Republican primary electorate is seeing him as uncontrolled, unbought by Beltway money and influence, and unafraid. At this writing, it appears that, barring some catastrophic event, it is difficult to see how either Rubio or Cruz can overtake Trump in the remaining primaries or how Kasich or Carson can long survive. By the end of this month, look for the field to lose 2 candidates (those in single digits), and possibly 3, if Senator Rubio loses the Florida primary election (notably a winner-take-all election) to Trump. Right now, current poll data reveals that Trump is leading Rubio in Florida and is closely behind Cruz in Texas. With the Texas primary next week, should Trump beat Cruz, the anti-Trump Republican cabal plan could be that Cruz drops out and endorses Rubio before the Florida primary in the hope that at least one of the pair survives to continue the battle. If this sound a bit far fetched, I agree, And, that's why I say that I cannot really see a path for any of the non-Trump candidates to take Trump out as the nominee of the Republican Party.
And, now.... onto Super Tuesday and the thirteen state primaries next week.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE "BERN".....
OK.... so Hillary didn't have a really good day in New Hampshire.... but, didn't everyone expect that she would lose NH badly from the start? As much as she wanted to narrow the gap there, it didn't happen. So, the outcome was no surprise, but dig down in the data and you find some information that gives one pause in the Clinton Campaign. The most disturbing outcomes are really two-fold: 1. the great disparity between Sanders and Clinton among young folks (gigantic), and, 2. the fact that Hillary also lost young women by a wide margin. For the sake of brevity, lets say that both data sets reflect one issue - the youth vote - and that the sub-set of young women is merely reflective of the age factor.
Now, you really can't say that the Democratic side is an inter-generational contest. After all, Bernie is older than Hillary by a bit. So, how is it that he bests her in this cohort? After all, both are really "establishment" candidates. Bernie has served in elective office for decades and Hillary is ... well ... Hillary. So, that's not it. Some say that his position on "free" college education is the key. Perhaps so... at least this may have some relevance and impact on the generation of voters that came away from their education years with gigantic debt or, seeing few job prospects, refused to go into heavy debt and gave up college altogether. Hillary is also supporting a better opportunity to attend college, just not free altogether. In either case, its about money... and lots of it. I think that this is really the problem theme for Hillary and the real issue - sometimes stated and other times unstated - that has the potential to once again sink the Clinton campaign - MONEY.
Lets take it as a given that young voters - as a voting class - are most likely still the most idealistic segment of the voting population. And, in fact, they are rapidly becoming the largest voting block - if they vote. Further, while they may be idealistic and still view the future as likely better than the present (eternal youth optimism), they are also the most skeptical generation in the past 50 years. With 43% as non-white, and feeling economically vulnerable, polling finds that just 20% say that most people can be trusted. That is, 80% of all people are suspect. And, of course, "politicians" fall far below that measure in "trustworthiness." Assuming all that is accurate, then it makes sense that young folks are suspicious of Hillary Clinton's past - the scandals, the history, and, more recently, the Republican attacks on her trustworthiness around the issues of Benghazi and the email issue. Hillary's response has been, "trust me" because I have been there for decades on issues that you care about. Not bad, until we get to the other issue that job- poor millennials care about - greed.
Historically, people without money really do not trust people with money. The poor don't trust the rich to act on their behalf or in their best interests - it reeks of "trickle-down economics." Instead, they think that the rich (owners, CEOs, managers, Boards of Directors, Hedge Fund Managers, Wall Street, etc. - the Monied class) are driven by wealth building and greed and will, therefore, act in their own interests and not for the benefit of working folks. For decades, this has become one of the bedrock beliefs and campaign themes of the Democratic Party in campaign after campaign and in debate on a wide variety of issues. It is the basis of Republican complaints regarding Democrats playing the "class warfare" card. Viewed through this prism, the Clinton Campaign has a serious problem.
Benghazi and emails aside, the fact that the monied class has had a history of "buying" elections with their excessive wealth through campaign contributions. Now, with the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, and through stealthy "Super PACs" channeling hundreds of millions of dollars into favored candidates, including right-wing conservative extremists, voters see a nexus between the power of money and influence corrupting good judgment and poisoning fair public policy debate through the "strings" attached to millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions. This is especially true of young voters, including young women, who believe that 80% of people cannot be trusted!
In my view, Hillary's primary problem is that she is entrapped between calling for the end of big money's influence on politics, the repeal of "Citizens United" and Super Pacs, and the out-sized roles that millionaires and billionaires play in our public discourse/elections, and accepting big contributions herself. Hillary has a Super PAC and she has accepted very large contributions into her campaign and into her PAC. This cash come from the very same millionaire class and Wall Street players that the Millennials distrust. This is not an issue lost on the Sanders campaign.
Bernie Sanders and his campaign team are taking the more cautious route at this time. They are not attacking Hillary as a "liar" or saying that she "cannot be trusted." They are well aware that she may very well be the candidate of the party at the end of the day. But, the recent (post Iowa) and constant refrain about Hillary accepting large amounts of "Wall Street" money (remember 'Occupy Wall Street'?), and having a large Super PAC stuffed with contributions from the rich, play on this theme and either inject or underscore a Hillary mistrust factor. The Sanders Campaign message is, Hillary says she will fight the Big Money interests including Wall Street and Big Banks and the role of "dark money" and Super PACs and be an advocate for social justice, those left behind, and for a society filled with opportunity for all, while she accepts giant waves of cash from wealthy donors and corporations. The message is a vague feeling that she may be just another "bought" candidate who had to make promises for that money. This is the basic Trump campaign theme succeeding on the republican side. Sending this message to an audience that already mistrusts their political establishment elders by a wide margin, may send Hillary into the "not trustworthy" category and could very well frustrate her campaign and deny our democracy the very first woman president in US history - evidently, not something that young millennium women care about at all.
Two other factors could make a difference. One is the racial divide between Clinton and Sanders. African American and Latino voters tend to wade through all of the verbal combat and, instead, rely on history to point to someone who has been in their corner for years and not just during this election cycle. This is the Hillary strong suit. The other factor is that young voters (18-29), the very cohort that is causing the Clinton Campaign fits, has a spotty turnout history. In 2012, just 38% of Hispanic voters cast ballots compared to 55% of Black voters and 48% of white millennials. Hillary needs to empower the Black vote, register and get out the Hispanic vote, and keep her fingers crossed that young women will "see the light" before election day. As is often the case in a political contest - as in much of life - the future of the nation may very well be determined by who shows up.
Now, you really can't say that the Democratic side is an inter-generational contest. After all, Bernie is older than Hillary by a bit. So, how is it that he bests her in this cohort? After all, both are really "establishment" candidates. Bernie has served in elective office for decades and Hillary is ... well ... Hillary. So, that's not it. Some say that his position on "free" college education is the key. Perhaps so... at least this may have some relevance and impact on the generation of voters that came away from their education years with gigantic debt or, seeing few job prospects, refused to go into heavy debt and gave up college altogether. Hillary is also supporting a better opportunity to attend college, just not free altogether. In either case, its about money... and lots of it. I think that this is really the problem theme for Hillary and the real issue - sometimes stated and other times unstated - that has the potential to once again sink the Clinton campaign - MONEY.
Lets take it as a given that young voters - as a voting class - are most likely still the most idealistic segment of the voting population. And, in fact, they are rapidly becoming the largest voting block - if they vote. Further, while they may be idealistic and still view the future as likely better than the present (eternal youth optimism), they are also the most skeptical generation in the past 50 years. With 43% as non-white, and feeling economically vulnerable, polling finds that just 20% say that most people can be trusted. That is, 80% of all people are suspect. And, of course, "politicians" fall far below that measure in "trustworthiness." Assuming all that is accurate, then it makes sense that young folks are suspicious of Hillary Clinton's past - the scandals, the history, and, more recently, the Republican attacks on her trustworthiness around the issues of Benghazi and the email issue. Hillary's response has been, "trust me" because I have been there for decades on issues that you care about. Not bad, until we get to the other issue that job- poor millennials care about - greed.
Historically, people without money really do not trust people with money. The poor don't trust the rich to act on their behalf or in their best interests - it reeks of "trickle-down economics." Instead, they think that the rich (owners, CEOs, managers, Boards of Directors, Hedge Fund Managers, Wall Street, etc. - the Monied class) are driven by wealth building and greed and will, therefore, act in their own interests and not for the benefit of working folks. For decades, this has become one of the bedrock beliefs and campaign themes of the Democratic Party in campaign after campaign and in debate on a wide variety of issues. It is the basis of Republican complaints regarding Democrats playing the "class warfare" card. Viewed through this prism, the Clinton Campaign has a serious problem.
Benghazi and emails aside, the fact that the monied class has had a history of "buying" elections with their excessive wealth through campaign contributions. Now, with the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, and through stealthy "Super PACs" channeling hundreds of millions of dollars into favored candidates, including right-wing conservative extremists, voters see a nexus between the power of money and influence corrupting good judgment and poisoning fair public policy debate through the "strings" attached to millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions. This is especially true of young voters, including young women, who believe that 80% of people cannot be trusted!
In my view, Hillary's primary problem is that she is entrapped between calling for the end of big money's influence on politics, the repeal of "Citizens United" and Super Pacs, and the out-sized roles that millionaires and billionaires play in our public discourse/elections, and accepting big contributions herself. Hillary has a Super PAC and she has accepted very large contributions into her campaign and into her PAC. This cash come from the very same millionaire class and Wall Street players that the Millennials distrust. This is not an issue lost on the Sanders campaign.
Bernie Sanders and his campaign team are taking the more cautious route at this time. They are not attacking Hillary as a "liar" or saying that she "cannot be trusted." They are well aware that she may very well be the candidate of the party at the end of the day. But, the recent (post Iowa) and constant refrain about Hillary accepting large amounts of "Wall Street" money (remember 'Occupy Wall Street'?), and having a large Super PAC stuffed with contributions from the rich, play on this theme and either inject or underscore a Hillary mistrust factor. The Sanders Campaign message is, Hillary says she will fight the Big Money interests including Wall Street and Big Banks and the role of "dark money" and Super PACs and be an advocate for social justice, those left behind, and for a society filled with opportunity for all, while she accepts giant waves of cash from wealthy donors and corporations. The message is a vague feeling that she may be just another "bought" candidate who had to make promises for that money. This is the basic Trump campaign theme succeeding on the republican side. Sending this message to an audience that already mistrusts their political establishment elders by a wide margin, may send Hillary into the "not trustworthy" category and could very well frustrate her campaign and deny our democracy the very first woman president in US history - evidently, not something that young millennium women care about at all.
Two other factors could make a difference. One is the racial divide between Clinton and Sanders. African American and Latino voters tend to wade through all of the verbal combat and, instead, rely on history to point to someone who has been in their corner for years and not just during this election cycle. This is the Hillary strong suit. The other factor is that young voters (18-29), the very cohort that is causing the Clinton Campaign fits, has a spotty turnout history. In 2012, just 38% of Hispanic voters cast ballots compared to 55% of Black voters and 48% of white millennials. Hillary needs to empower the Black vote, register and get out the Hispanic vote, and keep her fingers crossed that young women will "see the light" before election day. As is often the case in a political contest - as in much of life - the future of the nation may very well be determined by who shows up.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
ONE DOWN..... MANY TO GO.... THE IOWA REPORT.
Iowa was a real learning experience. So, what did we learn? First, that the electorate on both sides of the isle is not happy with the establishment parties. And, having the support of the in-place "establishment" turns out not to be a campaign asset in 2016.
Worse on the Republican side, the two leading candidates who received more than 50% of a record caucus turnout - Cruz and Trump - far outpaced the "establishment" candidates - Governors Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Huckabee. Other governors who had already withdrawn - Perry, Walker, Jindal, and Patacki - add to the notion that running for President from the position of Governor of a state did not resonate with the Republican electorate. Instead, the Tea Party outsider conservatism seem to be the thematic that works in 2016. But for Fiorina, Cruz, Trump, and Carson all stand on that spot, more or less, and accounted for more than 60% of the votes cast. Marco Rubio, who had a very good night and created some real momentum in coming in a close third place to Trumps second place finish, has strong Tea Party roots but has taken some more moderate positions in the past, notably on immigration policy. He did reverse course, but Cruz has hammered him on immigration as a supporter of "amnesty" without stop during the course of the campaign. Add the Rubio votes to the total, and the Tea Party conservative road is paved in electoral gold. At least 85% of the Iowa votes cast in the Republican race voted the ultra-conservative line! The Democratic Party is a different story.
Second, we learned that Democrats are not especially delighted with the "establishment" either. Hillary felt the "Bern" last night as Bernie Sanders came from a 40% polling deficit to wrestle the Clinton campaign into a virtual tie in Iowa. Although Hillary comes away with an extremely narrow win - the closest primary caucus outcome in Iowa history - and more delegate votes (thanks to pledged "Super Delegates"), this outcome is not good Clinton news. Sanders, an outsider running as a "Democratic Socialist" in the Democratic Primary, has captured the liberal wing of the party along with many progressives. The Iowa youth vote was especially skewered toward Bernie by a 85/15 split in favor of Sanders - quite the capture - and includes many younger women, the very group that Hillary hoped to attract as the first woman to become a major party presidential nominee. And, now it's on to New Hampshire where Bernie is expected to carry the state by a wide margin. If Clinton can close the new Hampshire gap as Sanders closed the Iowa gap, her campaign will recover some of its shine. If not, it will be game on in the southern primaries.
Third, we learned that the "dark money" of the Super Pacs" may not have the influence that was expected. The Bush campaign - and others - spent an ocean of cash on mail and TV/Radio with little apparent impact on the outcome in Iowa. Perhaps the Super Pacs, with their emphasis on media persuasion, will have greater impact on the "primary" states rather than those with a caucus system in place. Time will tell.
Fourth, we learned that the more contentious the race, the greater number of candidates and divergence of views, and the more vigorous the campaigns are, the greater the stimulus for a high turnout. The Iowa caucus turnout - on both sides - was the largest on record. Is that a function of the number of candidates in the contest on both sides? Is it related to more TV ads, mail, and personal visits during the contest? Is it more about the strident nature of the campaign rhetoric? The electoral jury is still out on this one. Still, new records were set. Perhaps it is a function of the anger, frustration, and disappointment that a majority of voters presently feel about the performance of their government. And, maybe it is also related to the very historically low positive polling numbers for congress.
And, fifth, we learned that there exists a large divide in the Iowa electorate. The right-wing, conservative, and evangelical segment of the electorate is a far policy cry from the young, liberal, progressive, and 47% self-identified "socialists" voters on the opposite side of the street. Now, THAT is a battleground.
On to New Hampshire.
Worse on the Republican side, the two leading candidates who received more than 50% of a record caucus turnout - Cruz and Trump - far outpaced the "establishment" candidates - Governors Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Huckabee. Other governors who had already withdrawn - Perry, Walker, Jindal, and Patacki - add to the notion that running for President from the position of Governor of a state did not resonate with the Republican electorate. Instead, the Tea Party outsider conservatism seem to be the thematic that works in 2016. But for Fiorina, Cruz, Trump, and Carson all stand on that spot, more or less, and accounted for more than 60% of the votes cast. Marco Rubio, who had a very good night and created some real momentum in coming in a close third place to Trumps second place finish, has strong Tea Party roots but has taken some more moderate positions in the past, notably on immigration policy. He did reverse course, but Cruz has hammered him on immigration as a supporter of "amnesty" without stop during the course of the campaign. Add the Rubio votes to the total, and the Tea Party conservative road is paved in electoral gold. At least 85% of the Iowa votes cast in the Republican race voted the ultra-conservative line! The Democratic Party is a different story.
Second, we learned that Democrats are not especially delighted with the "establishment" either. Hillary felt the "Bern" last night as Bernie Sanders came from a 40% polling deficit to wrestle the Clinton campaign into a virtual tie in Iowa. Although Hillary comes away with an extremely narrow win - the closest primary caucus outcome in Iowa history - and more delegate votes (thanks to pledged "Super Delegates"), this outcome is not good Clinton news. Sanders, an outsider running as a "Democratic Socialist" in the Democratic Primary, has captured the liberal wing of the party along with many progressives. The Iowa youth vote was especially skewered toward Bernie by a 85/15 split in favor of Sanders - quite the capture - and includes many younger women, the very group that Hillary hoped to attract as the first woman to become a major party presidential nominee. And, now it's on to New Hampshire where Bernie is expected to carry the state by a wide margin. If Clinton can close the new Hampshire gap as Sanders closed the Iowa gap, her campaign will recover some of its shine. If not, it will be game on in the southern primaries.
Third, we learned that the "dark money" of the Super Pacs" may not have the influence that was expected. The Bush campaign - and others - spent an ocean of cash on mail and TV/Radio with little apparent impact on the outcome in Iowa. Perhaps the Super Pacs, with their emphasis on media persuasion, will have greater impact on the "primary" states rather than those with a caucus system in place. Time will tell.
Fourth, we learned that the more contentious the race, the greater number of candidates and divergence of views, and the more vigorous the campaigns are, the greater the stimulus for a high turnout. The Iowa caucus turnout - on both sides - was the largest on record. Is that a function of the number of candidates in the contest on both sides? Is it related to more TV ads, mail, and personal visits during the contest? Is it more about the strident nature of the campaign rhetoric? The electoral jury is still out on this one. Still, new records were set. Perhaps it is a function of the anger, frustration, and disappointment that a majority of voters presently feel about the performance of their government. And, maybe it is also related to the very historically low positive polling numbers for congress.
And, fifth, we learned that there exists a large divide in the Iowa electorate. The right-wing, conservative, and evangelical segment of the electorate is a far policy cry from the young, liberal, progressive, and 47% self-identified "socialists" voters on the opposite side of the street. Now, THAT is a battleground.
On to New Hampshire.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
"Born in the USA??????"
Given the dialogue
that followed the most recent Republican debate on the topic of the
Constitutional requirements applicable to anyone seeking the Office of
the President and the dispute that has been on-going for weeks
regarding Senator Cruz and his birthplace in Canada, I just have to
chime in. The dialogue so far has been much muddled and pretty far off
of the mark. The general dialogue falls into one of two positions: 1.
As Cruz repeats over and over, the issue is "settled law" and that
someone born to parents (or one parent) that is a legitimate US Citizen,
are "natural born" citizens; and, 2. That a "natural born" citizen must
have been born on US soil (Trump).
The pundit dialogue so far seems to reveal that those commenting on the topic have done so without adequate research and have taken the easy way out by simply stating that the US Supreme Court has never ruled on this narrow issue. And, so goes the argument, without a Supreme Court ruling it is impossible to determine just what constitutes a "natural born citizen." This is simply just a dodge. Those that support the Cruz position - that it is already "settled law" - have evaporated from the commentary - as they should have done from the start - insofar as this issue is certainly not "settled law." The actual answer to this question is relatively simple and makes common sense. Citizenship results in only one of two ways - one is either "natural born" or "nationalized." The former is a consequence of place of birth and citizenship is conferred automatically as outlined in the Constitution. The latter is citizenship conferred by statute adopted by Congress outlining the conditions that must be met by those not "natural born" citizens. Citizenship is generally not automatic and may be conferred in a variety of ways. As a statute, the law may be amended from time to time or altered by judicial decision, changing the conditions and/or requirements necessary to achieve citizenship. These are "naturalized" citizens.
This debate evidently revolves around the issue of what the Framers of the Constitution meant or intended the language of the Constitution to mean when they distinguished the highest office in the land - the presidency - from the other significant offices - the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. All required citizenship as a prerequisite but just one - the presidency - requires that the person assuming office must be a "natural born" citizen. If there was no difference in the citizenship requirement, why distinguish one from the other with different language? One cannot find a better authority on what the Framers intended in 1788 than William Blackstone - the single most respected expert on legal intent and interpretation of legal language in that time period. In fact, to this day Blackstone, a colonial period British legal scholar, remains the premier authority of interpreting legal and statutory language before the American Court system and in law schools teaching western legal traditions. As a Harvard law School graduate, Ted Cruz certainly knows this very well.... just as he knows that this matter IS NOT "settled law."
Blackstone noted in his discussion of electoral qualifications for high office that "natural born" meant "born within the borders of the nation" versus, born outside the borders of the nation. The physical "nation" includes all of the legal territories of the nation including territories, colonies, military bases and/or embassy properties as defined by law. However, the law cannot define some other country as "within the borders of the United States." For those born outside these parameters, NATURALIZATION as a statutory construct provides a legal path to citizenship. There was a time when children of US Citizens born outside the country were required to go through a process of "naturalization" and were clearly not "natural born" citizens. Somewhere around 1934, Congress passed a statute conferring automatic citizenship on the children of US Citizens born elsewhere. That statute has been amended several times over the years to liberalize the rules for children "born outside the borders of the nation." Still, no amendment can confer "natural born" citizenship status on an individual who was not born inside the country - therefore, all such "automatic" citizens ARE NOT "natural born" citizens. The point is, why would Congress need to pass a law to cover these circumstances if such children were constitutionally "natural born?" Conferring "automatic" citizenship or "naturalized" citizenship is not the same thing as a "natural born" citizen, according to Blackstone.
Of course, not being a member of the Supreme Court, my opinion is of little consequence at this point. My degrees in history and sociology certainly do not compare with training in the law, especially from a well respected institution such as Harvard University. But, common sense (and Blackstone as well) reveals that the issue is not as unclear as Senator Cruz would want us to believe. Perhaps Bruce Springsteen had it right all along. What counts is being "Born in the USA" - period. Do not be satisfied with guesswork and ask your staff to research Blackstone. That widely accepted legal authority makes the issue quite clear - the only thing that makes you a "natural born" citizen is place of birth. One must be born "on the land" of the nation. Persons born elsewhere can become citizens - by statutorily conferred automatic citizenship or by a "naturalization" process - but can never be "natural born" citizens. As a result, though citizens all, only the "natural born" can occupy the office of the Presidency. It appears that does not include Ted Cruz.
The pundit dialogue so far seems to reveal that those commenting on the topic have done so without adequate research and have taken the easy way out by simply stating that the US Supreme Court has never ruled on this narrow issue. And, so goes the argument, without a Supreme Court ruling it is impossible to determine just what constitutes a "natural born citizen." This is simply just a dodge. Those that support the Cruz position - that it is already "settled law" - have evaporated from the commentary - as they should have done from the start - insofar as this issue is certainly not "settled law." The actual answer to this question is relatively simple and makes common sense. Citizenship results in only one of two ways - one is either "natural born" or "nationalized." The former is a consequence of place of birth and citizenship is conferred automatically as outlined in the Constitution. The latter is citizenship conferred by statute adopted by Congress outlining the conditions that must be met by those not "natural born" citizens. Citizenship is generally not automatic and may be conferred in a variety of ways. As a statute, the law may be amended from time to time or altered by judicial decision, changing the conditions and/or requirements necessary to achieve citizenship. These are "naturalized" citizens.
This debate evidently revolves around the issue of what the Framers of the Constitution meant or intended the language of the Constitution to mean when they distinguished the highest office in the land - the presidency - from the other significant offices - the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. All required citizenship as a prerequisite but just one - the presidency - requires that the person assuming office must be a "natural born" citizen. If there was no difference in the citizenship requirement, why distinguish one from the other with different language? One cannot find a better authority on what the Framers intended in 1788 than William Blackstone - the single most respected expert on legal intent and interpretation of legal language in that time period. In fact, to this day Blackstone, a colonial period British legal scholar, remains the premier authority of interpreting legal and statutory language before the American Court system and in law schools teaching western legal traditions. As a Harvard law School graduate, Ted Cruz certainly knows this very well.... just as he knows that this matter IS NOT "settled law."
Blackstone noted in his discussion of electoral qualifications for high office that "natural born" meant "born within the borders of the nation" versus, born outside the borders of the nation. The physical "nation" includes all of the legal territories of the nation including territories, colonies, military bases and/or embassy properties as defined by law. However, the law cannot define some other country as "within the borders of the United States." For those born outside these parameters, NATURALIZATION as a statutory construct provides a legal path to citizenship. There was a time when children of US Citizens born outside the country were required to go through a process of "naturalization" and were clearly not "natural born" citizens. Somewhere around 1934, Congress passed a statute conferring automatic citizenship on the children of US Citizens born elsewhere. That statute has been amended several times over the years to liberalize the rules for children "born outside the borders of the nation." Still, no amendment can confer "natural born" citizenship status on an individual who was not born inside the country - therefore, all such "automatic" citizens ARE NOT "natural born" citizens. The point is, why would Congress need to pass a law to cover these circumstances if such children were constitutionally "natural born?" Conferring "automatic" citizenship or "naturalized" citizenship is not the same thing as a "natural born" citizen, according to Blackstone.
Of course, not being a member of the Supreme Court, my opinion is of little consequence at this point. My degrees in history and sociology certainly do not compare with training in the law, especially from a well respected institution such as Harvard University. But, common sense (and Blackstone as well) reveals that the issue is not as unclear as Senator Cruz would want us to believe. Perhaps Bruce Springsteen had it right all along. What counts is being "Born in the USA" - period. Do not be satisfied with guesswork and ask your staff to research Blackstone. That widely accepted legal authority makes the issue quite clear - the only thing that makes you a "natural born" citizen is place of birth. One must be born "on the land" of the nation. Persons born elsewhere can become citizens - by statutorily conferred automatic citizenship or by a "naturalization" process - but can never be "natural born" citizens. As a result, though citizens all, only the "natural born" can occupy the office of the Presidency. It appears that does not include Ted Cruz.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
I don't think that we are in Kansas anymore Toto.....
Just some notes regarding Obama Care AKA as the ACA..... You know, sometimes the New Year brings with it a new appreciation for what is important.... Sometimes, it brings with it a pledge to change course from the destructive habits of the past.... And, sometimes, an individual learns nothing from the past and charges into the abyss anyhow. Lets consider two cases of Republican response to the ACA that made headlines this past week...
DATELINE: THE BELTWAY. Still wet behind the ears from his fast ascendancy to the Speakership of the House, former budget hawk and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan - AGAIN - led an effort to repeal the ACA and deny health care to more than 14 million Americans who have joined the system since 2012. Remember that these - and many more - had NO ACCESS to health insurance before the ACA for a variety of reasons - pre-existing conditions, cost beyond means, etc. So, instead of putting forth some viable alternative or a set of proposals aimed at a "fix" for what the opponents believe is wrong with the system, Speaker Ryan's solution - once again - is to pull out the meat ax and chop away. No suggestions. No alternatives. No amendments or alyernatives. Just inflict pain on those who are barely hanging on by their fingernails..... no lifeline, no lubricant..... just throw them to the wolves.... Ryan knows, of course (doesn't everyone?), that the bill will be vetoed by President Obama.... but, he passes the repeal of the ACA anyway (Bronx cheer and all)... and, the Republican Senate follows along. You might think that this is an election year or something....... So, what did all of these Beltway Right-Wingers learn from 2015? Evidently, nothing. Same old tune while Congressional approval polls (House and Senate) continue to fall into record single digits). No New Year Resolutions for change.... no reform of the old ways dialogue.... Lets just repeat the mistakes of the past, continue to derail progress and oppose any reasonable proposals regardless of the source on say... common sense gun control or immigration policy or repair of infrastructure. Instead, let's investigate Benghazi for the 14th time (whatever happened to Howdy Gowdy anyhow?) And hold a weekly repeal of Obama Care over and over...... Maybe we can shut the government down again or default on the debt? Some folks never learn....
DATELINE: KENTUCKY. Seems that the state of Kentucky has a new Republican Governor. Matt Bevin is a Tea Party favorite who pledged all along the campaign trail to repeal Kentuckycare - Kynect. The programs is the state's version of Obamacare using their own exchange to sign up those in need, and, in fact, IS Obamacare... and is wildly popular in Kentucky. In spite of his position on this issue, Bevin won a close contest in November and announced that he would dismantle the health care program before the end of 2015. Of course, he doesn't take office until 2016.... but, hey, that small detail never stopped a Tea Party member in their tracks... Just dress like Indians and throw some health care in the harbor in the dead of night! Hmmmmm..... Now that we are getting closer to Bevin taking power.... it seems that he is having second thoughts.... Maybe Kynect isn't so bad after all.... Or, perhaps he saw that repeal of this program and throwing hundreds of thousands of Kentucky residents (and voters) off the health care rolls without some alternative just wasn't a really good political move to make in his first month in office...... In any case, he is re-thinking his position on the matter..... Meanwhile, our fearless Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell who supported Kynect and took some pride and credit for getting hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians health insurance, voted for the Repeal last week! Looks like a case of BELTWAY vs REALITY. So, maybe the new Governor of Kentucky had an epiphany last week while the Beltway crowd sank deeper into the abyss.... How all this plays out with be quite the play to follow in 2016..... As Shakespeare wrote, "the play is the thing." Oh,,, let's not forget that the ACA is modeled on the Romney Plan adopted in Massachusetts before he ran for president against Barack Obama.....
See you on the field of play..... Check in often for more info and comment on the nature of the 2016 race - the characters and issues that will make this the year that was......
Again, Happy New Year.
DATELINE: THE BELTWAY. Still wet behind the ears from his fast ascendancy to the Speakership of the House, former budget hawk and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan - AGAIN - led an effort to repeal the ACA and deny health care to more than 14 million Americans who have joined the system since 2012. Remember that these - and many more - had NO ACCESS to health insurance before the ACA for a variety of reasons - pre-existing conditions, cost beyond means, etc. So, instead of putting forth some viable alternative or a set of proposals aimed at a "fix" for what the opponents believe is wrong with the system, Speaker Ryan's solution - once again - is to pull out the meat ax and chop away. No suggestions. No alternatives. No amendments or alyernatives. Just inflict pain on those who are barely hanging on by their fingernails..... no lifeline, no lubricant..... just throw them to the wolves.... Ryan knows, of course (doesn't everyone?), that the bill will be vetoed by President Obama.... but, he passes the repeal of the ACA anyway (Bronx cheer and all)... and, the Republican Senate follows along. You might think that this is an election year or something....... So, what did all of these Beltway Right-Wingers learn from 2015? Evidently, nothing. Same old tune while Congressional approval polls (House and Senate) continue to fall into record single digits). No New Year Resolutions for change.... no reform of the old ways dialogue.... Lets just repeat the mistakes of the past, continue to derail progress and oppose any reasonable proposals regardless of the source on say... common sense gun control or immigration policy or repair of infrastructure. Instead, let's investigate Benghazi for the 14th time (whatever happened to Howdy Gowdy anyhow?) And hold a weekly repeal of Obama Care over and over...... Maybe we can shut the government down again or default on the debt? Some folks never learn....
DATELINE: KENTUCKY. Seems that the state of Kentucky has a new Republican Governor. Matt Bevin is a Tea Party favorite who pledged all along the campaign trail to repeal Kentuckycare - Kynect. The programs is the state's version of Obamacare using their own exchange to sign up those in need, and, in fact, IS Obamacare... and is wildly popular in Kentucky. In spite of his position on this issue, Bevin won a close contest in November and announced that he would dismantle the health care program before the end of 2015. Of course, he doesn't take office until 2016.... but, hey, that small detail never stopped a Tea Party member in their tracks... Just dress like Indians and throw some health care in the harbor in the dead of night! Hmmmmm..... Now that we are getting closer to Bevin taking power.... it seems that he is having second thoughts.... Maybe Kynect isn't so bad after all.... Or, perhaps he saw that repeal of this program and throwing hundreds of thousands of Kentucky residents (and voters) off the health care rolls without some alternative just wasn't a really good political move to make in his first month in office...... In any case, he is re-thinking his position on the matter..... Meanwhile, our fearless Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell who supported Kynect and took some pride and credit for getting hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians health insurance, voted for the Repeal last week! Looks like a case of BELTWAY vs REALITY. So, maybe the new Governor of Kentucky had an epiphany last week while the Beltway crowd sank deeper into the abyss.... How all this plays out with be quite the play to follow in 2016..... As Shakespeare wrote, "the play is the thing." Oh,,, let's not forget that the ACA is modeled on the Romney Plan adopted in Massachusetts before he ran for president against Barack Obama.....
See you on the field of play..... Check in often for more info and comment on the nature of the 2016 race - the characters and issues that will make this the year that was......
Again, Happy New Year.
Monday, January 4, 2016
HAPPY NEW YEAR AND WELCOME TO THE YEAR THAT WILL ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS....
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ONE AND ALL...... and, welcome to 2016 - the year that will be filled with excitement, wonder, and..... the largest number of Presidential candidates in history! Yet, when all is said and done, the number will shrink from the current 14 (11 Rs and 3 Ds) to 2 or 3 (maybe an Independent?). And, then comes the "really big show" this fall. At this writing, some 84 candidates continue in this race. Oops..... did I say 84? Yup..... Right now there are 15 Democrats seeking the party nod, 31 Republicans seeking their party designation, and 38 Independent candidates in the field.
Did I mention a partridge in a pear tree? Of course, the media focus (and that means all of us too) is limited to 3 Dems, 11 Repubs, and.... well... who knows who all those Indies are anyhow????
So, lets see how attuned you really are...... Can you identify the following? Well... lets make it easier.... Identify the following 10 names by party affiliation - D, R, I - and lets see how you do.
Ready? Here goes.... no Google assists now.....
1. Willie Carter. 2. Kerry Andrews. 3. Valma Kittington. 4. Ed Baker. 5. Scott Copeland
6. Doug Shreffler 7. Lloyd Kelso 8. Chad Koppie. 9. Tami Stainfield. 10. Jeb Bush
So..... Recognize a few? Some? A bunch? Just one? Bet I can guess...... JEB BUSH!
Well.... OK... so, that one was a "gimme"... but, I didn't want you to feel like a totally uninformed member or the presidential electorate...... But, given that Jeb is still in single digits after spending millions of dollars in TV and radio ads, he might as well suffer the fate of all the others named above - political oblivion in 2016. But, I leave that decision to the wing-nuts, tea-baggers, and the right-wing crazies who are presently pretending to be the Republican Party..... And, should one of their own somehow become the Republican nominee, perhaps that will lead to the post-Labor Day field of candidates including someone who might make a race of it.... But, I get ahead of myself.
"Wonder"..... I mentioned that in my opening. I do wonder when the Republican electorate might wake up to the possibility that they could be heading to the dustbin of American political history where they can join the Bullmoose Party, the Whig Party, and many others who, in their time, made poor political judgments and suffered the consequences. Is it possible that the Rs will so cannibalize themselves that they give birth to a Third Party? Or, we will see many flee a more extreme example of the reasonable, responsible, and conservative Republican Party of the 20th Century as the party takes on a more extreme and radical agenda as the "new" Republican Party in the 21st century? Time will tell as the primary electorate begins to focus on their candidates in 2016 as it really did not do in 2015. Will the "new" Republican party nominate one of their radical number and burn brightly for a time and then burn out like a meteor streaking through the atmosphere as it burns into a cinder and disappears? And, can Hillary survive the present FBI review of the e-mail controversy, unite the liberal wing of the party, and use Martin O'Malley on the stump to forge party unity for yet another Democratic victory this year? We will certainly bear witness to it all as the election unfolds throughout the year.
2016 - an exciting year in American electoral politics.... and, potentially a very historic one as well.
Could it be the election of billionaire Donald Trump and the rule of the American Oligarchs? Or, perhaps the election of the first woman president in US history? Or, will we all "feel the burn" with the election of an old and angry man from Vermont named Sanders? It is really up to us.... So, hang onto your hats ladies and gentlemen.... And, as Jackie Gleason used to say.. "AND, AWAY WE GO!
Did I mention a partridge in a pear tree? Of course, the media focus (and that means all of us too) is limited to 3 Dems, 11 Repubs, and.... well... who knows who all those Indies are anyhow????
So, lets see how attuned you really are...... Can you identify the following? Well... lets make it easier.... Identify the following 10 names by party affiliation - D, R, I - and lets see how you do.
Ready? Here goes.... no Google assists now.....
1. Willie Carter. 2. Kerry Andrews. 3. Valma Kittington. 4. Ed Baker. 5. Scott Copeland
6. Doug Shreffler 7. Lloyd Kelso 8. Chad Koppie. 9. Tami Stainfield. 10. Jeb Bush
So..... Recognize a few? Some? A bunch? Just one? Bet I can guess...... JEB BUSH!
Well.... OK... so, that one was a "gimme"... but, I didn't want you to feel like a totally uninformed member or the presidential electorate...... But, given that Jeb is still in single digits after spending millions of dollars in TV and radio ads, he might as well suffer the fate of all the others named above - political oblivion in 2016. But, I leave that decision to the wing-nuts, tea-baggers, and the right-wing crazies who are presently pretending to be the Republican Party..... And, should one of their own somehow become the Republican nominee, perhaps that will lead to the post-Labor Day field of candidates including someone who might make a race of it.... But, I get ahead of myself.
"Wonder"..... I mentioned that in my opening. I do wonder when the Republican electorate might wake up to the possibility that they could be heading to the dustbin of American political history where they can join the Bullmoose Party, the Whig Party, and many others who, in their time, made poor political judgments and suffered the consequences. Is it possible that the Rs will so cannibalize themselves that they give birth to a Third Party? Or, we will see many flee a more extreme example of the reasonable, responsible, and conservative Republican Party of the 20th Century as the party takes on a more extreme and radical agenda as the "new" Republican Party in the 21st century? Time will tell as the primary electorate begins to focus on their candidates in 2016 as it really did not do in 2015. Will the "new" Republican party nominate one of their radical number and burn brightly for a time and then burn out like a meteor streaking through the atmosphere as it burns into a cinder and disappears? And, can Hillary survive the present FBI review of the e-mail controversy, unite the liberal wing of the party, and use Martin O'Malley on the stump to forge party unity for yet another Democratic victory this year? We will certainly bear witness to it all as the election unfolds throughout the year.
2016 - an exciting year in American electoral politics.... and, potentially a very historic one as well.
Could it be the election of billionaire Donald Trump and the rule of the American Oligarchs? Or, perhaps the election of the first woman president in US history? Or, will we all "feel the burn" with the election of an old and angry man from Vermont named Sanders? It is really up to us.... So, hang onto your hats ladies and gentlemen.... And, as Jackie Gleason used to say.. "AND, AWAY WE GO!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)