Mike Pence - former Member of Congress.... Evangelical.... Governor of Indiana ... and all around... well.... someone who will do or say anything to get away from his home state. At least, that is what it appears to be. You see, in addition to being a total loon, Donald Trump apparently is a master magician as well. With one wave of the Vice-Presidential magic wand, the Donald has transformed Mike Pence from the solid and principled conservative he has been for 20 years and more to the ultimate yes man for almost-nominated Trump. A simple comparison of the record and policy positions of Pence and Trump tells the story of how substantial a transformation Pence's recent visit to NYC really was.
Mike Pence has a policy record in the Congress and as Governor of Indiana that is sharply at odds with the Trump positions. Like Hillary Clinton, Pence voted for and supported the Iraq war. Trump delights in attacking Hillary as having "very poor judgment" for that vote, but spins a rationalization for Pence, with the very same vote. In one MSNBC interview, Trump appeared to be caught like a deer in the headlights of a speeding car when asked about this apparent gross inconsistency. The Donald said that Pence's vote was OK... after all, "he is entitled to a mistake and information was misrepresented." Hillary, evidently, isn't entitled to the very same courtesy.
And, then there is the issue same-sex marriage - Trump says it's OK and Pence is opposed. On the issue of transgender use of particular bathrooms, Trump says that in his hotels, who cares what bathroom an individual uses while Pence signed an Indiana bill into law to limit bathroom use to the birth gender of the individual. Pence is opposed to women right to choose and have control of their own body as upheld in Roe v. Wade. In fact, as a Member of Congress, he announced that his greatest day would be the day that a future Supreme Court (with Judges evidently appointed by Trump) reverses Roe v. Wade thereby destroying a woman's right to choose. Pence said, "I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the trash heap of history." He also sponsored a bill in congress that would have allowed hospitals to refuse to perform abortions even in those cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Trump, on the other hand, says that he is anti-abortion but fudges on several exceptions... and stated in another interview that a woman who violates the law and gets an abortion outside any applicable limitations "should get some form of punishment." Pence voted for legislation that would give "personhood" rights to embryos. What a team! Scary, right?
Pence has said that tobacco doesn't kill, supports the NRA position that guns don't kill either... so, guns-for-all is the answer, denies the impact of human activity on global warming (must be cow releases of methane), supported the shut-down of the federal government to prevent the funding of (pick one) Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Food Stamps, Medicaid, School Lunch Program, and/or PBS. He threatened to block funding for hurricane Katrina relief unless cuts were made to Medicare , and the National School Lunch Program. If all of this sounds vaguely familiar or that you may have heard those positions or demands before, you are right. These positions have been the issues of the Tea Party, the Evangelical Movement, and the Far Right for decades. And, in fact, you can find the very same positions in the Speaker Ryan Budget and in the Republican Platform just adopted this week. That's right - Mike Pence is a darling of these groups.... and that is why Donald Trump selected him instead of Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie as his running mate. The Trump plan is to secure his right flank with the Pence candidacy and go for the middle ground with a dash of Law and Order, attacks on minorities and immigrants - especially Muslims - and a new round of isolationism seasoned with heavy doses of fear-mongering, finger-pointing, scapegoating, and blaming others for the challenges that we face as a nation.
The result is Trump's long-held positions of building a wall to keep Latin American immigrants out of the United States, exporting 11 million or more current illegal immigrants who are living in our communities, preventing any further Muslim immigration, and vigorously interrogating current Muslims living here in peace to make sure that they do not harbor any ill will toward the USA, are all still on the table. When Pence endorsed Ted Cruz for the Nomination during the primary cycle, he opposed the wall, questioned the strategy of rounding up all of the illegals already here by special squads of INS Agents and busing them out of the country by the millions, and commented that discrimination against all Muslims was just plain wrong. When asked about these inconsistencies last week - after Trump announced his selection as his Vice Presidential running mate, Pence dodged the questions and, instead, described Trump as " a good man" who would become a "great president." Huh? Does Pence support Trump and his policies? Or, does Trump support Pence's policies - the man who is one heartbeat away from the Presidency and who's positions are largely opposite Trump's positions? Or, maybe this political marriage isn't about governance and policy after all but, simply raw, rough and tumble politics? Do Trump and Pence actually stand for nothing at all and would they say or do virtually anything to get to the White House and the power that comes with the office? What do you think? The only thing that seems to be missing are the brown shirts, the burning books, and the street thugs in uniform. We do, however, have the Trump salute and loyalty oath as witnessed during the primary at several Trump "rallies." The question is, did Mike Pence do the Trump salute, drink the Trump cool-aid, and swear the Trump loyalty oath before or after he had a Trump steak with some Trump wine? What other price did Pence pay to get his ticket punched as a Vice-Presidential candidate on the 2016 Trump ticket? Only time will tell. Perhaps we will get the answer to that question about the time that we see the Trump tax returns. Don't hold your breath.....
Monday, July 18, 2016
Friday, July 8, 2016
MORE BLOODSHED ON THE WAY TO CONVENTIONS.......
A sad day for America...... Last night's news of the massacre in Dallas came on the heels of yet another pair of deaths of black men at the hands of white police officers. Of course, these two events are related, as one of the Dallas attackers stated to police during an active negotiation before he was killed by a police-planted bomb. Three others were arrested as suspects in what appears to be a coordinated attack by several attackers seeking to kill white police officers. Let us offer up a moment of silence for those lives lost - black and white - in these events and offer some prayers of comfort for the families left behind. Truly a sad day for our nation and, especially, for the families who are suffering this loss. Appropriately, both political campaigns cancelled appearances out of respect for these horrible losses. Together, we must find a way to stop this carnage which has spun out of control for years. Perhaps the next President can lead the way to a better relationship between our communities and those sworn to serve and protect.
Meanwhile, the Republican Congress continues to resist any common sense gun control measures or to even debate the issue of denying access to guns for those on the terror watch list. Instead, an "emergency" meeting of the House Oversight and Governmental Affairs was called to grill FBI Director James Comey to challenge his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should not be criminally charged in the never-ending e-mail server issue. After a 1 year study of the entire issue, a review of 30,000+ emails - those handed over and others re-created by the FBI from other "fragments" or full messages residing on the recipients or senders computers, the FBI non-political, career investigators and prosecutors, determined that no charges were warranted. In spite of the fact that considerable carelessness was indeed reported, such an outcome did not rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy or an intentional breach of the law. This, of course, was contrary to the political agenda of the Republicans in the House and on the Committee. They were eagerly awaiting a recommendation for a Special Grand Jury or a call for an indictment of Hillary Clinton - a wet dream for right-wing Republicans for more than 20 years. But, Director Comey, a life-long Republican himself, dashed their hoped-for destruction of the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Comey, reporting to the public in a rare public statement on the investigation, noted that he found a handful of "classified" e-mails among the tens of thousands reviewed - 8 (3-thousandths of 1 %) containing information that was classified as "Top Secret - Special Access Program", another 22 (7 thousandths of 1 %) as "Top Secret", and another 36 (1 thousandth of 1 %) classified as "Secret." In all, including some others that were noted as "sensitive but not classified" came to less than 3% of the e-mail reviewed.
Hillary had said over and over that none of her e-mails - either sent or received - contained classified material and the Director's report seems to contradict this statement. Needless to say, the Republican members of the Committee gleefully pointed to this conflict and essentially began to accuse Hillary of perjury in testimony before their committee, lying to the public, and, potentially, lying to the FBI. Lying to Congress is a crime as is obstruction of justice if lying to the FBI. Director Comey clearly stated that Hillary did not lie to the FBI during her interview with their investigators. And, that leaves her testimony before the Congressional Committee.
Director Comey did state that the of the 3% of e-mails in question with the other 97% not an issue at all, the "classified" e-mails did not comply with the "classification rules book." The rules call for such communications be clearly labeled as CLASSIFIED in the header along with the level of classification, "TOP SECRET" for example. In addition, a mark in the text of the transmission - (c) - also indicates that a part or a paragraph or some portion of the message, perhaps all of the content, is "classified." It goes without saying that such a in-text mark cannot convey the level of "classification" attached to the material. Director Comey testified that none of the subject e-mails contained the CLASSIFIED notation in the header. It would seem a reasonable conclusion that a reader/reviewer of a substantial number of e-mail messages - not alerted to the CLASSIFIED nature of the content of the message by the use of a header in the subject line of at the top of the message - could overlook an in-text - (c) - during a review of multiple e-mails - again, less than 3 out of 100. Had the header notation read CLASSIFIED - EYES ONLY or some other indication rather than a - (c) - in the text somewhere, such a conclusion would have been far more difficult to reach. But, the facts are, none of the e-mails followed the rule book and the reader was not warned by the bold header classification notice as required. An oversight by the sender? Of course. And an oversight by the recipient - Secretary Clinton? Of course. Criminal charges to be brought? I think not... and, evidently, the FBI Director agreed.
The "shock" evidenced by the Republicans on the Committee was predictable. After all, the outcome didn't support their predetermined political agenda. And, just like another Republican - Supreme Court Justice Roberts - who had the courage of his convictions in supporting Obamacare against legal attacks on 2 occasions, the right wing reacted with scorn, personal attacks, and political rumor. It seems that they just cannot stand judgments based on careful and balanced consideration of the facts, application of the law and precedent, and arriving at a clear and sustainable conclusion. Unless you support their narrow view of the world and the people in it, you are to be condemned as "traitor" and suspect of being in the pockets of liberals" and "socialists." It is a shame that the far right has abandoned common sense, measured debate, and negotiation and has taken on hard-line, bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners politics. If the Republicans were reasoned in their approach to government and reasonable in their policies and politics and kept the well-being of the American people paramount in their minds, perhaps we would not have suffered the awful news of so many deaths in the last 2 days. The Republicans should take to heart a line from one of their founders - Abraham Lincoln. These are the words he spoke just after the Civil War in his Second Inaugural Address in 1865 - "with malice for none and charity for all. " If the House Republicans would follow that practice, then, perhaps, we can again "bind up the nation's wounds ... to do that that may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Applying that approach to issues of gun control and the relations between the police and their communities, to the issues of race and the racial divide that continue to haunt our neighborhoods, and inserting "charity for all" into public policy dialogue to excise the politics of hate and division that plague our democratic system and stymie our ability to address the important issues that face the nation, would be a giant step forward and a major step toward reconciliation and measured progress. Perhaps then we - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike - can "bind up the nation's wounds." At least, it might be a start.
Light a candle. Say a prayer.
Meanwhile, the Republican Congress continues to resist any common sense gun control measures or to even debate the issue of denying access to guns for those on the terror watch list. Instead, an "emergency" meeting of the House Oversight and Governmental Affairs was called to grill FBI Director James Comey to challenge his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should not be criminally charged in the never-ending e-mail server issue. After a 1 year study of the entire issue, a review of 30,000+ emails - those handed over and others re-created by the FBI from other "fragments" or full messages residing on the recipients or senders computers, the FBI non-political, career investigators and prosecutors, determined that no charges were warranted. In spite of the fact that considerable carelessness was indeed reported, such an outcome did not rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy or an intentional breach of the law. This, of course, was contrary to the political agenda of the Republicans in the House and on the Committee. They were eagerly awaiting a recommendation for a Special Grand Jury or a call for an indictment of Hillary Clinton - a wet dream for right-wing Republicans for more than 20 years. But, Director Comey, a life-long Republican himself, dashed their hoped-for destruction of the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Comey, reporting to the public in a rare public statement on the investigation, noted that he found a handful of "classified" e-mails among the tens of thousands reviewed - 8 (3-thousandths of 1 %) containing information that was classified as "Top Secret - Special Access Program", another 22 (7 thousandths of 1 %) as "Top Secret", and another 36 (1 thousandth of 1 %) classified as "Secret." In all, including some others that were noted as "sensitive but not classified" came to less than 3% of the e-mail reviewed.
Hillary had said over and over that none of her e-mails - either sent or received - contained classified material and the Director's report seems to contradict this statement. Needless to say, the Republican members of the Committee gleefully pointed to this conflict and essentially began to accuse Hillary of perjury in testimony before their committee, lying to the public, and, potentially, lying to the FBI. Lying to Congress is a crime as is obstruction of justice if lying to the FBI. Director Comey clearly stated that Hillary did not lie to the FBI during her interview with their investigators. And, that leaves her testimony before the Congressional Committee.
Director Comey did state that the of the 3% of e-mails in question with the other 97% not an issue at all, the "classified" e-mails did not comply with the "classification rules book." The rules call for such communications be clearly labeled as CLASSIFIED in the header along with the level of classification, "TOP SECRET" for example. In addition, a mark in the text of the transmission - (c) - also indicates that a part or a paragraph or some portion of the message, perhaps all of the content, is "classified." It goes without saying that such a in-text mark cannot convey the level of "classification" attached to the material. Director Comey testified that none of the subject e-mails contained the CLASSIFIED notation in the header. It would seem a reasonable conclusion that a reader/reviewer of a substantial number of e-mail messages - not alerted to the CLASSIFIED nature of the content of the message by the use of a header in the subject line of at the top of the message - could overlook an in-text - (c) - during a review of multiple e-mails - again, less than 3 out of 100. Had the header notation read CLASSIFIED - EYES ONLY or some other indication rather than a - (c) - in the text somewhere, such a conclusion would have been far more difficult to reach. But, the facts are, none of the e-mails followed the rule book and the reader was not warned by the bold header classification notice as required. An oversight by the sender? Of course. And an oversight by the recipient - Secretary Clinton? Of course. Criminal charges to be brought? I think not... and, evidently, the FBI Director agreed.
The "shock" evidenced by the Republicans on the Committee was predictable. After all, the outcome didn't support their predetermined political agenda. And, just like another Republican - Supreme Court Justice Roberts - who had the courage of his convictions in supporting Obamacare against legal attacks on 2 occasions, the right wing reacted with scorn, personal attacks, and political rumor. It seems that they just cannot stand judgments based on careful and balanced consideration of the facts, application of the law and precedent, and arriving at a clear and sustainable conclusion. Unless you support their narrow view of the world and the people in it, you are to be condemned as "traitor" and suspect of being in the pockets of liberals" and "socialists." It is a shame that the far right has abandoned common sense, measured debate, and negotiation and has taken on hard-line, bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners politics. If the Republicans were reasoned in their approach to government and reasonable in their policies and politics and kept the well-being of the American people paramount in their minds, perhaps we would not have suffered the awful news of so many deaths in the last 2 days. The Republicans should take to heart a line from one of their founders - Abraham Lincoln. These are the words he spoke just after the Civil War in his Second Inaugural Address in 1865 - "with malice for none and charity for all. " If the House Republicans would follow that practice, then, perhaps, we can again "bind up the nation's wounds ... to do that that may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Applying that approach to issues of gun control and the relations between the police and their communities, to the issues of race and the racial divide that continue to haunt our neighborhoods, and inserting "charity for all" into public policy dialogue to excise the politics of hate and division that plague our democratic system and stymie our ability to address the important issues that face the nation, would be a giant step forward and a major step toward reconciliation and measured progress. Perhaps then we - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike - can "bind up the nation's wounds." At least, it might be a start.
Light a candle. Say a prayer.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
"And... AWAY WE GO!!!" - Jackie Gleason
Primary season came to a conclusion yesterday (not counting the CA vote-counting, still underway). And, as seemed most likely from the start of the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton made history by becoming the very first woman to be a major party Nominee for the presidency of the United States. It was quite the moment. Bernie Sanders, who had hoped to win most if not all of the 6 states voting yesterday, eked out victories in just 2 states while Hillary won 4 states, including the all-important prize for the night - California. Hillary carried delegate-rich NJ by a 2-1 margin, continuing her successes in neighboring east coast states and, at this writing, leads Sanders in California by nearly 500,000 votes. The California system, including mail-in ballots, takes some time to count all votes, and, although Hillary's led may be reduced by some amount, the current returns have resulted in a far greater margin of victory for Hillary than was anticipated given recent polling data. Bernie Sanders placed a significant bet on carrying California and, though not a landslide, it appears that the Clinton campaign will win by a wide margin. As of sunrise today, Hillary carried the Pledged Delegates by a wide margin, the raw votes of Democrats by around 3.5 million votes, and continues to lead in Super Delegate head count by a crushing amount. By any measure, Hillary won every aspect of this election cycle and now faces Donald Trump in the fall race.
OK. So, both Trump and Clinton are the "presumptive" nominees of their respective parties. Translation - absent an earthquake, an arrest, or some other disaster visited on either or both candidates, these two will surely face each other in the fall race. Yes, there are still substantial Republican office holders and contributors who have distanced themselves from Trump (the Never-Trump crowd)... and, Trump continues to spew out some really shocking or, at least, unfortunate comments regarding the Judge in the Trump University matter. And, there are Bernie Democrats who maintain that they will never vote for Hillary. But, I must say here that the initial comparison weighs in Hillary's favor. Trump's penchant for self-inflicted wounds alienating various minority groups and women as well, certainly does not help his cause or attract the moderate independent voters that the Republicans will need if they hope to win the presidency. Hillary, on the other hand, must work with Bernie and his allies to heal the primary wounds on both sides and to forge an alliance with the young cadre' of Millennials, progressives, and the more liberal wing of the party, to cover the flank and do their best to capture the Senate and the House as well as the Presidency.
Meanwhile, Republican Speaker Paul Ryan released his Anti-Poverty plan. Senator Warren immediately took to the microphones (and megaphones as well) to denounce the plan as just a rehash of his past policy of protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, privatizing Social Security, slashing Medicaid and a variety of social supports for the poor. Its just the same old story - more tax cuts, less revenue, higher debt, and cuts to entitlement programs aimed at uplifting the poor out of poverty on the premise that we cannot afford it! Trickle down at its best from Ryan and racism and scapegoating from Trump - perfect together. Add a dash of the Koch brothers dark money to fund the attack dogs of the right under the color of the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, and you get the GOP's best chance to elect Trump and to lock up the Supreme Court for decades to come. Quite a horror show in my view.
Meetings of the leadership and strategists of both parties will take place over the next several weeks. The goal of these meetings is to plan a course and a campaign that will lead to victory for that party's candidates for president, Senate, and the House. Given the course of both campaign so far, I am keeping my fingers crossed that Hillary Clinton can succeed, that the Dems carry the Senate (more likely) and the House (less likely) majority, and that the American people survive the fall campaign process. If that happens, the pain of the 2015-2016 campaign will have been worth the discomfort, the pain, the outrage, and the shock of the Trump invasion into our politics and into our homes. And, maybe then, the United States can get past the gridlock of the past 8 and more years, and focus on the business of the American people, rebuilding opportunity and infrastructure, forging new partnerships for progress economically and socially, and emphasizing equality for all persons, regardless of race, religion, ethic origin, or .... gender.
OK. So, both Trump and Clinton are the "presumptive" nominees of their respective parties. Translation - absent an earthquake, an arrest, or some other disaster visited on either or both candidates, these two will surely face each other in the fall race. Yes, there are still substantial Republican office holders and contributors who have distanced themselves from Trump (the Never-Trump crowd)... and, Trump continues to spew out some really shocking or, at least, unfortunate comments regarding the Judge in the Trump University matter. And, there are Bernie Democrats who maintain that they will never vote for Hillary. But, I must say here that the initial comparison weighs in Hillary's favor. Trump's penchant for self-inflicted wounds alienating various minority groups and women as well, certainly does not help his cause or attract the moderate independent voters that the Republicans will need if they hope to win the presidency. Hillary, on the other hand, must work with Bernie and his allies to heal the primary wounds on both sides and to forge an alliance with the young cadre' of Millennials, progressives, and the more liberal wing of the party, to cover the flank and do their best to capture the Senate and the House as well as the Presidency.
Meanwhile, Republican Speaker Paul Ryan released his Anti-Poverty plan. Senator Warren immediately took to the microphones (and megaphones as well) to denounce the plan as just a rehash of his past policy of protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, privatizing Social Security, slashing Medicaid and a variety of social supports for the poor. Its just the same old story - more tax cuts, less revenue, higher debt, and cuts to entitlement programs aimed at uplifting the poor out of poverty on the premise that we cannot afford it! Trickle down at its best from Ryan and racism and scapegoating from Trump - perfect together. Add a dash of the Koch brothers dark money to fund the attack dogs of the right under the color of the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, and you get the GOP's best chance to elect Trump and to lock up the Supreme Court for decades to come. Quite a horror show in my view.
Meetings of the leadership and strategists of both parties will take place over the next several weeks. The goal of these meetings is to plan a course and a campaign that will lead to victory for that party's candidates for president, Senate, and the House. Given the course of both campaign so far, I am keeping my fingers crossed that Hillary Clinton can succeed, that the Dems carry the Senate (more likely) and the House (less likely) majority, and that the American people survive the fall campaign process. If that happens, the pain of the 2015-2016 campaign will have been worth the discomfort, the pain, the outrage, and the shock of the Trump invasion into our politics and into our homes. And, maybe then, the United States can get past the gridlock of the past 8 and more years, and focus on the business of the American people, rebuilding opportunity and infrastructure, forging new partnerships for progress economically and socially, and emphasizing equality for all persons, regardless of race, religion, ethic origin, or .... gender.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
STILL FEELING THE BERN???? OR, BURNED UP????
You know, I was one of those who viewed the Bernie Campaign as a good thing. Bernie would move Hillary to the left a bit and he would be a good foil and sharpen Hillary's skills for the fall race. However, as time has gone by... and Bernie has become more and more an attack dog, eroding Hillary's chances in the fall... and then making the argument that HE would do better against Trump than Hillary (thanks to Bernie's attacks, of course), he is now deluding himself - and, even worse, his supporters - that he can still win the nomination at the Convention. This is not only a delusion, but is more likely to become an even larger let-down for Sanders supporters at the Philadelphia Convention. Adding to the drama, the Bernie set has already secured 4 demonstration permits from the Philadelphia authorities for the 4 days of the Convention. It sure does not sound like a Sanders plan to heal the wounds of the Primary Campaign and an effort to "unify" the Democratic Party. It looks more like a 1968 Convention protest and, possibly, a staged walkout to break away from the Democratic Party in front of the entire viewing nation. If that is his plan, and, if the party split actually happens, Sanders will certainly go down in electoral history as the wolf in sheep's clothing that was let into the Democratic tent one year ago only to attack it from within and, in so doing, help elect the most dangerous presidential candidate ever nominated, Donald J. Trump.
Of course, this fracture may simply occur by accident borne out of the hubris or daydreams of one candidate rather than by some nefarious design. But, don't bet on it. Had the Democratic Party not let Independent Democratic Socialist Senator Sanders of Vermont run in the Party primary, he would have been relegated to an independent candidacy the likes of Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. At that point, Sanders would not have qualified for inclusion in the Democratic Party Primary debates and would have been just another voice in the shadows with predictable results. Instead, he was let in, allowed on the debate stages, provided with substantial exposure that he would not otherwise have had access, and his "outsider" candidacy, now legitimate, has become more than a set of policy objectives. The Sanders campaign has become the biggest threat to the election of a Democrat in 2016. No - Sanders will not have earned the nomination... and, if he does, he would lose in my view, once under withering attack by the Right-wing Army. So, instead, he has taken on the role of foil and spoiler for the Hillary campaign and he is regularly quoted in Trump attacks on Hillary. Sanders could become the element in the fall that in fact, elects Trump. Is this what we really want? Evidently, Senator Elizabeth Warren is concerned... and has recently focused her own personal attacks on Trump - just where Bernie should be. But, he continues to attack Hillary in California and within days, described Governor Jerry Brown as "the establishment" for his endorsement of Hillary. If there is anyone in office today who is certainly NOT the establishment, it's Jerry Brown. But hey - the Bernie beat goes on..... Trump is just one step away from the nuclear codes.... and Bernie's Hillary attacks continue - on her character, trust issues, qualifications, and even misrepresenting her position on health care. Bernie needs to be attacking Trump in his speeches, like Warren, and make the effort to erode Trump support for the fall race, rather than attacking the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, damaging our chances of winning the race in the fall. Does Bernie really want to take the blame for electing Trump?
Please..... Bill and Hillary murdered Vince Foster? Ted Cruz' dad conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK? Obama is a Kenyan Muslim? He "saw and heard" thousands of NJ Muslims cheering when the World trade Center came down? Vaccines cause autism? The Mexican government is "exporting" thousands of "it's worst people - murderers, rapists, drug lords" to our shores? Judge Scalia was murdered? REALLY?????? Do we really want this person - Donald Trump - who believes and advocates these screwy notions, and is currently in court for perpetrating a FRAUD on hundreds of folks with a fake college, Trump University? This is the very same person who will not release his tax returns and proudly states that he declared several bankruptcies in his business life - because, under the rules, he could, leaving others in the financial lurch. Last week he released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees who, if appointed, would gut much of the progressive agenda that was adopted in the past several decades or more. And, women, LOOK OUT! Is this really who we want in the Oval Office? Women.... Hispanics.... African Americans... Working families.... immigrant families... and middle class families who are being squeezed by the likes of Trump? Even our long-time international allies are rightly concerned that this megalomaniac could possibly become President and command the largest military force in global history. But, evidently, Bernie isn't concerned.... or, at least he seems willing to risk this outcome... as long as he alone sees some slim path to becoming the Democratic party's nominee himself!
One has to wonder which one - Trump or Sanders - is the REAL egocentric danger.
Of course, this fracture may simply occur by accident borne out of the hubris or daydreams of one candidate rather than by some nefarious design. But, don't bet on it. Had the Democratic Party not let Independent Democratic Socialist Senator Sanders of Vermont run in the Party primary, he would have been relegated to an independent candidacy the likes of Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. At that point, Sanders would not have qualified for inclusion in the Democratic Party Primary debates and would have been just another voice in the shadows with predictable results. Instead, he was let in, allowed on the debate stages, provided with substantial exposure that he would not otherwise have had access, and his "outsider" candidacy, now legitimate, has become more than a set of policy objectives. The Sanders campaign has become the biggest threat to the election of a Democrat in 2016. No - Sanders will not have earned the nomination... and, if he does, he would lose in my view, once under withering attack by the Right-wing Army. So, instead, he has taken on the role of foil and spoiler for the Hillary campaign and he is regularly quoted in Trump attacks on Hillary. Sanders could become the element in the fall that in fact, elects Trump. Is this what we really want? Evidently, Senator Elizabeth Warren is concerned... and has recently focused her own personal attacks on Trump - just where Bernie should be. But, he continues to attack Hillary in California and within days, described Governor Jerry Brown as "the establishment" for his endorsement of Hillary. If there is anyone in office today who is certainly NOT the establishment, it's Jerry Brown. But hey - the Bernie beat goes on..... Trump is just one step away from the nuclear codes.... and Bernie's Hillary attacks continue - on her character, trust issues, qualifications, and even misrepresenting her position on health care. Bernie needs to be attacking Trump in his speeches, like Warren, and make the effort to erode Trump support for the fall race, rather than attacking the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, damaging our chances of winning the race in the fall. Does Bernie really want to take the blame for electing Trump?
Please..... Bill and Hillary murdered Vince Foster? Ted Cruz' dad conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK? Obama is a Kenyan Muslim? He "saw and heard" thousands of NJ Muslims cheering when the World trade Center came down? Vaccines cause autism? The Mexican government is "exporting" thousands of "it's worst people - murderers, rapists, drug lords" to our shores? Judge Scalia was murdered? REALLY?????? Do we really want this person - Donald Trump - who believes and advocates these screwy notions, and is currently in court for perpetrating a FRAUD on hundreds of folks with a fake college, Trump University? This is the very same person who will not release his tax returns and proudly states that he declared several bankruptcies in his business life - because, under the rules, he could, leaving others in the financial lurch. Last week he released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees who, if appointed, would gut much of the progressive agenda that was adopted in the past several decades or more. And, women, LOOK OUT! Is this really who we want in the Oval Office? Women.... Hispanics.... African Americans... Working families.... immigrant families... and middle class families who are being squeezed by the likes of Trump? Even our long-time international allies are rightly concerned that this megalomaniac could possibly become President and command the largest military force in global history. But, evidently, Bernie isn't concerned.... or, at least he seems willing to risk this outcome... as long as he alone sees some slim path to becoming the Democratic party's nominee himself!
One has to wonder which one - Trump or Sanders - is the REAL egocentric danger.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
A DEPRESSING PAUSE IN THE ACTION.....
Since my last post we have witnessed a growing hostility between the Clinton camp and the Sanders campaign. I do understand that the frustration must be high for those who support Bernie, but the tone and tenor of the dialogue emanating from the Sanders' campaign has obviously intensified over the past several weeks. Just days ago, the Nevada Democratic Convention to select delegates for the National Convention and to adopt state rules for future delegate selection methods resulted in near violence, for the most part, emanating from the Sanders supporters. Press reports clearly laid the near-violence on the Sanders supporters who came as protesters and disruptors, not as debaters ready for a calm discussion. They shouted down Senator Barbara Boxer and disrupted the convention. No one has denied this description. If mob violence is a "future we can believe in", then I will take a pass.
As should have been done by all leaders in the party, this sort of behavior - and the threats that were made against the state chairperson in the aftermath - are more the actions of an angry mob and not the civil discourse of a political policy debate. The DNC chair, several Senators, and other observers decried this behavior and called upon all of the players to denounce violent, disruptive behavior as well as personal threats and intimidation which also took place after the Nevada convention. Bernie Sanders, sadly, did not. Although his comments generally were a rejection of violence, he defended his supporters and blamed their frustration on the Democratic Party "leaders" instead. In other words, he blamed the outbreak of violence and threats in Nevada on the victims of that disruption and violence. Hmmmm... blaming the victim.... heard that somewhere before..... I would have thought that Senator Sanders was better than that.... It seems more and more that Bernie's presence in the race - and the level of discourse that his campaign is encouraging - is creating real damage to the nominee of the party - Hillary Clinton. Bernie's heated negative attacks against the party, the process, and the candidate are doing nothing more than handing the Trump camp fodder for the fall. Makes one wonder just what the objective of the Sanders campaign truly is. Democratic Party process reform is one thing - but, blowing the election cycle - the equivalent of taking your ball and going home - is just not acceptable.
Recall that the Democratic Party could have prevented Bernie - an independent until this election cycle - from running inside the party primary process. That would have cast Sanders in the role of previous independent candidates with Democratic Party leanings like Ralph Nader. Instead, the Party took a risk and welcomed him into the Party and the process. Notably, the process then and now was the same and well-known to all parties. Bernie has complained that he is losing because of "closed" primaries" - elections that only permit registered Democrats to vote in the selection of the candidate. Hmmmmm. Who should we let vote to determine the candidate of the Democratic Party? Republicans? Independents? Or, should Democrats select the Democratic candidate? Perhaps Bernie the Independent "Democratic Socialist" wanted this one to be a two-fer - get registered Democratic votes AND Independent votes knowing the fate of Ralph Nader and others who ran as Independent-only candidates. Of course, there is no national party called the "Democratic Socialist Party" but there is the "Socialist Party" and a number of others to choose from. However, these do not offer either the platform, media attention, or the numbers of voters available to advance a candidacy to the finish line. Does the Republican Party permit registered Libertarians vote in their primaries? Of course not. Do they let the America First Party or the Prohibition Party standard bearers onto their Presidential Debate stage so they can appeal to registered Republican voters? Come on.....
So, Bernie gets to run as a Democrat - which he had prior to this cycle, he had steadfastly contended that he was not. And, he does surprisingly well against the presumed candidate in-the-wings, Hillary Clinton. Baggage, yes. But, with a wealth of experience - as First Lady, as US Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State, no modern candidate has been better prepared for the office of the Presidency. Her knowledge and experience, her battle-tested and well-scarred toughness in the face of adversity is unmatched. As I write this, we all know that Hillary will become the nominee - with a majority of the raw votes case, a majority of the won Pledged Delegates, and a majority of the Super Delegates (unless Bernie takes California by 50+ points over Clinton). The Sanders' campaign continues to pretend that they can still win the nomination..... and pretend that their increasingly intense attacks on Hillary actually help the Party. His position is that he "will do everything that I can to defeat Donald Trump this fall." Now, what does that mean? Does he, along with Elizabeth Warren, campaign night and day to make sure that Bernie's supporters remain engaged and vote for Hillary come fall? Or, could it mean that Bernie leads his "political revolution" on a quixotic journey into an independent campaign effort... say, as "Democratic Socialists" and, in combination with the Socialist Party, try to establish a new political construct in the array of national political parties? Could it be that the Sanders' plan is to split the Democratic vote so that Trump wins while cloaking himself in "doing everything that I can...." as an independent candidate? Is it possible that, after 4 years of s disastrous Trump Presidency, he plans to emerge as the "savior" candidate to take on Trump in 2020? OK... so, I may be crossing over into the political twilight zone.... but, all of these are at least possible....
More likely, Bernie loses to Hillary, Hillary becomes the nominee, Bernie endorses Hillary and Hillary gets booed by Bernie Delegates, and Bernie appears on Hillary's behalf several times in the fall and in some TV ads and maybe mail to his donors and identified voters in negative-Trump messaging. But, after the Bernie-inflicted damage of these last several weeks, the narrowing Hillary lead over Trump in the polls, and a continuing Bernie attack on Hillary and the Party for next month or so before the Convention, will that be enough? And, isn't that the real question? Stay tuned.
As should have been done by all leaders in the party, this sort of behavior - and the threats that were made against the state chairperson in the aftermath - are more the actions of an angry mob and not the civil discourse of a political policy debate. The DNC chair, several Senators, and other observers decried this behavior and called upon all of the players to denounce violent, disruptive behavior as well as personal threats and intimidation which also took place after the Nevada convention. Bernie Sanders, sadly, did not. Although his comments generally were a rejection of violence, he defended his supporters and blamed their frustration on the Democratic Party "leaders" instead. In other words, he blamed the outbreak of violence and threats in Nevada on the victims of that disruption and violence. Hmmmm... blaming the victim.... heard that somewhere before..... I would have thought that Senator Sanders was better than that.... It seems more and more that Bernie's presence in the race - and the level of discourse that his campaign is encouraging - is creating real damage to the nominee of the party - Hillary Clinton. Bernie's heated negative attacks against the party, the process, and the candidate are doing nothing more than handing the Trump camp fodder for the fall. Makes one wonder just what the objective of the Sanders campaign truly is. Democratic Party process reform is one thing - but, blowing the election cycle - the equivalent of taking your ball and going home - is just not acceptable.
Recall that the Democratic Party could have prevented Bernie - an independent until this election cycle - from running inside the party primary process. That would have cast Sanders in the role of previous independent candidates with Democratic Party leanings like Ralph Nader. Instead, the Party took a risk and welcomed him into the Party and the process. Notably, the process then and now was the same and well-known to all parties. Bernie has complained that he is losing because of "closed" primaries" - elections that only permit registered Democrats to vote in the selection of the candidate. Hmmmmm. Who should we let vote to determine the candidate of the Democratic Party? Republicans? Independents? Or, should Democrats select the Democratic candidate? Perhaps Bernie the Independent "Democratic Socialist" wanted this one to be a two-fer - get registered Democratic votes AND Independent votes knowing the fate of Ralph Nader and others who ran as Independent-only candidates. Of course, there is no national party called the "Democratic Socialist Party" but there is the "Socialist Party" and a number of others to choose from. However, these do not offer either the platform, media attention, or the numbers of voters available to advance a candidacy to the finish line. Does the Republican Party permit registered Libertarians vote in their primaries? Of course not. Do they let the America First Party or the Prohibition Party standard bearers onto their Presidential Debate stage so they can appeal to registered Republican voters? Come on.....
So, Bernie gets to run as a Democrat - which he had prior to this cycle, he had steadfastly contended that he was not. And, he does surprisingly well against the presumed candidate in-the-wings, Hillary Clinton. Baggage, yes. But, with a wealth of experience - as First Lady, as US Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State, no modern candidate has been better prepared for the office of the Presidency. Her knowledge and experience, her battle-tested and well-scarred toughness in the face of adversity is unmatched. As I write this, we all know that Hillary will become the nominee - with a majority of the raw votes case, a majority of the won Pledged Delegates, and a majority of the Super Delegates (unless Bernie takes California by 50+ points over Clinton). The Sanders' campaign continues to pretend that they can still win the nomination..... and pretend that their increasingly intense attacks on Hillary actually help the Party. His position is that he "will do everything that I can to defeat Donald Trump this fall." Now, what does that mean? Does he, along with Elizabeth Warren, campaign night and day to make sure that Bernie's supporters remain engaged and vote for Hillary come fall? Or, could it mean that Bernie leads his "political revolution" on a quixotic journey into an independent campaign effort... say, as "Democratic Socialists" and, in combination with the Socialist Party, try to establish a new political construct in the array of national political parties? Could it be that the Sanders' plan is to split the Democratic vote so that Trump wins while cloaking himself in "doing everything that I can...." as an independent candidate? Is it possible that, after 4 years of s disastrous Trump Presidency, he plans to emerge as the "savior" candidate to take on Trump in 2020? OK... so, I may be crossing over into the political twilight zone.... but, all of these are at least possible....
More likely, Bernie loses to Hillary, Hillary becomes the nominee, Bernie endorses Hillary and Hillary gets booed by Bernie Delegates, and Bernie appears on Hillary's behalf several times in the fall and in some TV ads and maybe mail to his donors and identified voters in negative-Trump messaging. But, after the Bernie-inflicted damage of these last several weeks, the narrowing Hillary lead over Trump in the polls, and a continuing Bernie attack on Hillary and the Party for next month or so before the Convention, will that be enough? And, isn't that the real question? Stay tuned.
Friday, May 6, 2016
TRUMPOLOGY 101
So, here we are.... post Bush and Rubio... post Cruz and Kasich... And, the last man standing is DONALD TRUMP! This had all been foretold months earlier by the obviously insightful and most prophetic political observer and prognosticator in America. You guessed it.... DONALD TRUMP.
From the start of this election exercise, Donald trump was essentially dismissed as a "buffoon", a "clown", not a serious candidate, only trying to get some exposure for a new TV venture or, playing at "reality TV". Add an entire host of negative adjectives essentially portraying Trump as an "also-ran" type who wouldn't last three months. After all, he was running in a field populated by experienced elected officials - governors, senators, and others with either the experience or the apparent disposition to become Commander-in-Chief. Trump, on the other hand, with his uneven presentations, and ill-informed opinions, seemed not equipped to assume the mantle of national, if not global, leadership. It seemed as though - no one - not the other candidates, the media, political analysts, national consultants, and others well experienced in presidential electoral combat - not one person believed that Trump was a serious contender. The consensus was that, regardless of whatever ridiculous reason that Donald Trump had for entering the race, he would fall out early in the contest. There was only one person who dismissed all of the nay-sayers - Donald Trump himself.
As the Republican field was winnowed down from 17 to 15 to 12 to 5 and then to the final three, somehow, Donald Trump was never among the missing in action. He would soldier on - sometimes in a painfully clumsy way, tweeting his way to the lead in state after state. Trump saw something that others did not see at all. And, he pursued it so fiercely that others were blinded by the flash of combat and the fog of war. Most thought that he was just "crazy" by leaving some deeply held conservative policy positions, long the mainstay of the Republican Party orthodoxy and national platform. Abortion bans with no exception, de-funding Planned Parenthood, eliminating health care plans for all Americans, and free trade policy like NAFTA and the elimination of trade barriers, just to name a few. Trump's failure to sign on to these issues and others convinced the Republicans that he could not really, really be serious about winning the Republican nomination for President, especially with a strong conservative like Ted Cruz in the race, and against the Capitol Hill budget hero and current Governor John Kasich. His antics really must be a joke, they thought. He was getting a bunch of attention, though. But, we chalked it all up to his "celebrity" status and the unusual nature of his behavior that attracted "oddballs and crazies" as well as his completely unorthodox campaign. But, the Donald had other plans.
While the other candidates focused their efforts on the traditional Republican base, Trump went after the disaffected, angry, disappointed, fearful, and left behind voters who had not participated in the process for years. In the days of Nixon, these folks were referred to as "the silent majority." Trump correctly identified this cohort of the potential electorate and aimed dead center. He believed that tapping into their anger at the Washington "establishment" and "politics as usual" (translation - lying to voters every election and doing nothing) and the "corruption" of the process through large campaign contributions (bribes, according to Trump) to purchase influence that was against the interests of working class and middle class families. Trump refused contributions and so far is self-funded. No bribes or donations that might make him beholding to some lobbyist or corporate leader.
Better yet, whatever you need, he will deliver. Re-open coal mines - well, of course. Get rid of the EPA - sure... done. Lower taxes on you and raise them on others - hey, that's the plan, right? And, just this week, (heaven forbid!) he expressed willingness to raise taxes on the wealthy! No wonder that Ted Cruz described Trump as an identical reflection of Hillary Clinton. After all, they are both from New York... and they must share New York "values", right? The point is, Donald Trump had his eye squarely on the ball. It was just a different ball than Lyin' Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Little Marco, and low-energy Jeb had on their agenda. So, while the rest of the field was dividing up the "conservative" standard Republican Presidential primary voters, the Trump campaign was romancing a different group of voters, appealing to their frustration and anger at the system (and its occupants - like governors, senators, and other Beltway regulars), energizing them with his antics, tweets, unique persona, and his marketing skills. His goal - to create an entire new constituency - a Trump constituency of new voters in the Republican primary, not steeped in the conservative orthodoxy but driven by economic arguments that would motivate those left behind in the current sluggish economy. This would be the basis of the Trump"cult of personality" that would sustain him throughout the primary season. He would blame immigrants, Muslims, and minorities for the failure of the economic recovery to lift up all boats. And, his solutions - building a wall, keeping Muslims out, rounding up and exporting illegal residents, abolishing Obamacare, tearing up free trade deals and imposing tariffs on imports, and re-negotiating NATO and other alliances sounds more like the nativists of the late 19th century and the isolationists of the mid-20th century before America took on a global leadership role after WW II and continues to occupy on the world stage. Is this who we have become? Build a tall wall around the castle, throw out problem children, raise the drawbridge, and man the barricades? This is the American dream? A closed off and garrisoned nation bristling with nuclear weapons, daring the world to ... just try it! Really?
Donald Trump added thousands if not millions of "new" Republican primary voters to the equation. While the others were dividing up the old-school pizza, Trump was having an entirely new meal delivered - the new Trump voter. Fluid, vague, and malleable, the Trump campaign calculated that he could appeal to many outside the traditional Tea-Party, or right-wing conservative voters who had dominated the Republican party for decades. The strategy worked and Donald Trump re-shaped the Republican Party in his own image, nearly free of the confining policy positions of the past. Once the nominee, look for the post-convention Trump to adopt more mainstream positions so compete for Main Street votes. With conservative leaders, media outlets, and elected officials complaining on the right, and attacks on the left from progressives against the excesses of a billionaire, criticism from women who he has regularly maligned along the way, or from Latinos objecting to being scapegoated as murderers, drug dealers, and rapists, or from Black voters already feeling the distance and dismissive attitude of a racist candidate with little claim to support for civil rights, voting rights, employment opportunity, or educational assistance for minorities, Trump has quite the challenge ahead. But, Trumpology holds that he will "make America Great Again" by sheer force of will, a dash of confused policy, slowly simmered with the anger of the working class white voter, especially the white male voter, with a big dose of Hillary poison, negative ads, and the most ugly attacks ever presented in a presidential campaign. The question for the fall is - can he do it again. Trumpology says, but, of course. What do you say?
From the start of this election exercise, Donald trump was essentially dismissed as a "buffoon", a "clown", not a serious candidate, only trying to get some exposure for a new TV venture or, playing at "reality TV". Add an entire host of negative adjectives essentially portraying Trump as an "also-ran" type who wouldn't last three months. After all, he was running in a field populated by experienced elected officials - governors, senators, and others with either the experience or the apparent disposition to become Commander-in-Chief. Trump, on the other hand, with his uneven presentations, and ill-informed opinions, seemed not equipped to assume the mantle of national, if not global, leadership. It seemed as though - no one - not the other candidates, the media, political analysts, national consultants, and others well experienced in presidential electoral combat - not one person believed that Trump was a serious contender. The consensus was that, regardless of whatever ridiculous reason that Donald Trump had for entering the race, he would fall out early in the contest. There was only one person who dismissed all of the nay-sayers - Donald Trump himself.
As the Republican field was winnowed down from 17 to 15 to 12 to 5 and then to the final three, somehow, Donald Trump was never among the missing in action. He would soldier on - sometimes in a painfully clumsy way, tweeting his way to the lead in state after state. Trump saw something that others did not see at all. And, he pursued it so fiercely that others were blinded by the flash of combat and the fog of war. Most thought that he was just "crazy" by leaving some deeply held conservative policy positions, long the mainstay of the Republican Party orthodoxy and national platform. Abortion bans with no exception, de-funding Planned Parenthood, eliminating health care plans for all Americans, and free trade policy like NAFTA and the elimination of trade barriers, just to name a few. Trump's failure to sign on to these issues and others convinced the Republicans that he could not really, really be serious about winning the Republican nomination for President, especially with a strong conservative like Ted Cruz in the race, and against the Capitol Hill budget hero and current Governor John Kasich. His antics really must be a joke, they thought. He was getting a bunch of attention, though. But, we chalked it all up to his "celebrity" status and the unusual nature of his behavior that attracted "oddballs and crazies" as well as his completely unorthodox campaign. But, the Donald had other plans.
While the other candidates focused their efforts on the traditional Republican base, Trump went after the disaffected, angry, disappointed, fearful, and left behind voters who had not participated in the process for years. In the days of Nixon, these folks were referred to as "the silent majority." Trump correctly identified this cohort of the potential electorate and aimed dead center. He believed that tapping into their anger at the Washington "establishment" and "politics as usual" (translation - lying to voters every election and doing nothing) and the "corruption" of the process through large campaign contributions (bribes, according to Trump) to purchase influence that was against the interests of working class and middle class families. Trump refused contributions and so far is self-funded. No bribes or donations that might make him beholding to some lobbyist or corporate leader.
Better yet, whatever you need, he will deliver. Re-open coal mines - well, of course. Get rid of the EPA - sure... done. Lower taxes on you and raise them on others - hey, that's the plan, right? And, just this week, (heaven forbid!) he expressed willingness to raise taxes on the wealthy! No wonder that Ted Cruz described Trump as an identical reflection of Hillary Clinton. After all, they are both from New York... and they must share New York "values", right? The point is, Donald Trump had his eye squarely on the ball. It was just a different ball than Lyin' Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Little Marco, and low-energy Jeb had on their agenda. So, while the rest of the field was dividing up the "conservative" standard Republican Presidential primary voters, the Trump campaign was romancing a different group of voters, appealing to their frustration and anger at the system (and its occupants - like governors, senators, and other Beltway regulars), energizing them with his antics, tweets, unique persona, and his marketing skills. His goal - to create an entire new constituency - a Trump constituency of new voters in the Republican primary, not steeped in the conservative orthodoxy but driven by economic arguments that would motivate those left behind in the current sluggish economy. This would be the basis of the Trump"cult of personality" that would sustain him throughout the primary season. He would blame immigrants, Muslims, and minorities for the failure of the economic recovery to lift up all boats. And, his solutions - building a wall, keeping Muslims out, rounding up and exporting illegal residents, abolishing Obamacare, tearing up free trade deals and imposing tariffs on imports, and re-negotiating NATO and other alliances sounds more like the nativists of the late 19th century and the isolationists of the mid-20th century before America took on a global leadership role after WW II and continues to occupy on the world stage. Is this who we have become? Build a tall wall around the castle, throw out problem children, raise the drawbridge, and man the barricades? This is the American dream? A closed off and garrisoned nation bristling with nuclear weapons, daring the world to ... just try it! Really?
Donald Trump added thousands if not millions of "new" Republican primary voters to the equation. While the others were dividing up the old-school pizza, Trump was having an entirely new meal delivered - the new Trump voter. Fluid, vague, and malleable, the Trump campaign calculated that he could appeal to many outside the traditional Tea-Party, or right-wing conservative voters who had dominated the Republican party for decades. The strategy worked and Donald Trump re-shaped the Republican Party in his own image, nearly free of the confining policy positions of the past. Once the nominee, look for the post-convention Trump to adopt more mainstream positions so compete for Main Street votes. With conservative leaders, media outlets, and elected officials complaining on the right, and attacks on the left from progressives against the excesses of a billionaire, criticism from women who he has regularly maligned along the way, or from Latinos objecting to being scapegoated as murderers, drug dealers, and rapists, or from Black voters already feeling the distance and dismissive attitude of a racist candidate with little claim to support for civil rights, voting rights, employment opportunity, or educational assistance for minorities, Trump has quite the challenge ahead. But, Trumpology holds that he will "make America Great Again" by sheer force of will, a dash of confused policy, slowly simmered with the anger of the working class white voter, especially the white male voter, with a big dose of Hillary poison, negative ads, and the most ugly attacks ever presented in a presidential campaign. The question for the fall is - can he do it again. Trumpology says, but, of course. What do you say?
Monday, May 2, 2016
ON THE ROAD WITH HILLARY.....
As this campaign season has moved forward toward the party conventions, it has become increasingly clear that Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. State after state, contest after contest, the Clinton raw vote totals have steadily increased. Hillary's majority in the raw vote now is at around 3,000,000 more votes than Sanders. And, this same lop-sided margin is reflected in the delegate votes that the two currently claim - Clinton 2165; Sanders 1357. The Sanders campaign has complained for months that the "Super Delegates", a collection of party leaders, elected officials and others elected at state conventions or caucuses, have inappropriately tilted the delegate totals heavily in favor of Hillary. Bernie is correct that the Super Delegates favor Hillary by a wide margin - 520 to Sanders 39 - and that is a part of the delegate math. But, Bernie is wrong when he takes the position that if the "Super Delegates" were set aside and the "Pledged Delegates" (those that were won in caucuses and primaries in the various states) were counted, he would be the nominee. Subtract the "Supers" from the totals above and the current result is: Clinton 1645; Sanders 1318, a 327 delegate lead for Clinton. Only 1243 delegates remain in future contests, including New Jersey and California.
New Jersey is a "proportional" delegate state with 126 delegates in total - 72 elected in 20 paired legislative districts, 24 at-large delegates "elected" at a meeting of the NJ State Democratic Committee one week after the NJ Primary election on June 7th, and the balance being "Super Delegates", pledged or not. The big prize yet to be determined is California. With a total of 548 delegate votes to be determined - 475 elected in congressional districts and 73 "Super Delegates", Sanders is relying on some pretty optimistic projections in thinking that Hillary will not gain enough delegates to secure the nomination before the Convention meets in Philadelphia. The current average of 8 polling organizations has Hillary ahead of Sanders by 8 points. The Sanders strategy is to target selected congressional districts to secure a substantial amount of delegates. Still, making up nearly 330 votes in a political environment with Hillary ahead in polling and the largest delegates states having proportional plans in place, seems unlikely. Add to that problem that Hillary has a substantial and disproportionate edge in pledged "Super Delegates (520-39), and she currently has a total of 2165 delegates. 2383 delegates are necessary to secure a majority of all delegates and the Presidential nomination. Absent lightening striking, that means that Hillary just needs 218 additional delegates in the contests ahead. With 1243 still available between now and June 7th - the last Primary Election day in the Democratic calendar, Sanders could win a very unlikely 80% of the remaining delegates, and Hillary would still win 249 - and the nomination. This nomination is OUT OF REACH for the Sanders' campaign.
So, why does Bernie continue? He has the financial resources. He has an agenda of a number of progressive policy issues and objectives to advance. He and his supporters can (and will) impact the Democratic party Platform through the Platform Committee. And, he may seek a substantial change in party nomination rules for future presidential contests - especially in the role of the "Super Delegates" that has so haunted the Sanders' campaign since the start of the election season. However, this primary selection process is effectively over.
The 2016 contest will be Clinton vs. Trump.
New Jersey is a "proportional" delegate state with 126 delegates in total - 72 elected in 20 paired legislative districts, 24 at-large delegates "elected" at a meeting of the NJ State Democratic Committee one week after the NJ Primary election on June 7th, and the balance being "Super Delegates", pledged or not. The big prize yet to be determined is California. With a total of 548 delegate votes to be determined - 475 elected in congressional districts and 73 "Super Delegates", Sanders is relying on some pretty optimistic projections in thinking that Hillary will not gain enough delegates to secure the nomination before the Convention meets in Philadelphia. The current average of 8 polling organizations has Hillary ahead of Sanders by 8 points. The Sanders strategy is to target selected congressional districts to secure a substantial amount of delegates. Still, making up nearly 330 votes in a political environment with Hillary ahead in polling and the largest delegates states having proportional plans in place, seems unlikely. Add to that problem that Hillary has a substantial and disproportionate edge in pledged "Super Delegates (520-39), and she currently has a total of 2165 delegates. 2383 delegates are necessary to secure a majority of all delegates and the Presidential nomination. Absent lightening striking, that means that Hillary just needs 218 additional delegates in the contests ahead. With 1243 still available between now and June 7th - the last Primary Election day in the Democratic calendar, Sanders could win a very unlikely 80% of the remaining delegates, and Hillary would still win 249 - and the nomination. This nomination is OUT OF REACH for the Sanders' campaign.
So, why does Bernie continue? He has the financial resources. He has an agenda of a number of progressive policy issues and objectives to advance. He and his supporters can (and will) impact the Democratic party Platform through the Platform Committee. And, he may seek a substantial change in party nomination rules for future presidential contests - especially in the role of the "Super Delegates" that has so haunted the Sanders' campaign since the start of the election season. However, this primary selection process is effectively over.
The 2016 contest will be Clinton vs. Trump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)