Wednesday Open Thread [6.22.16]
Steve Benen says Hillary Clinton is pursuing a 50 state strategy:
In his lengthy address to supporters last week, Bernie Sanders didn’t make specific demands of Democrats, but he condemned the party for having “turned its back on dozens of states in this country.” The senator insisted, “The Democratic Party needs a 50-state strategy. We may not win in every state tomorrow but we will never win unless we recruit good candidates and develop organizations that can compete effectively in the future.”
Given Sanders’ comments about the South a few months ago, he may not be the ideal messenger for this message, but if the senator is counting on Hillary Clinton’s campaign agreeing with his vision, he should be pleased with the latest Democratic developments. The Huffington Post reported over the weekend:
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign will maintain staff in all 50 states during the general election with an eye toward overwhelming Republicans in the fall and rebuilding the Democratic Party’s infrastructure thereafter.
[…] Clinton’s plan is already receiving praise from the Democrat most closely associated with the 50-state strategy: Howard Dean, the former DNC chair and former Vermont governor.
.@elizabethforma takes on @realDonaldTrump's refusal to release his tax returns via @MoveOn. #UniteAgainstHatehttps://t.co/7RFqgnD0OT
— MoveOn.org (@MoveOn) June 21, 2016
What Trump needs, though it’s uncertain how he’d manage it, is to rebrand, build a cocoon and reemerge, as a sane, emotionally balanced Republican who could leverage public uncertainty about Hillary Clinton and harness the inherent strengths of the party which hasn’t held the presidency in eight years. He desperately needs a public perception reset on the temperament front. But his impulse, which always rules him, is to channel every white guy over 50 who’s spent twenty years gnashing his teeth for the opportunity to call Hillary a c#%t and developed hypertension for lack of an opportunity to say it to her face.
I can only imagine what this bodes for his big Hillary speech [today].
Be afraid, Donald Trump. We're about to see the best of Barack Obama | Richard Wolffe https://t.co/XueTw94Xqj
— Nancy LeTourneau (@Smartypants60) June 21, 2016
Rick Klein: “Where does Donald Trump go to get his base confident about his campaign? Not in internal management, with his campaign manager now out, the victim of an internal turf war that involved Trump’s three oldest children. Not in his fundraising report, a measly document that would have set a new low this century for a major-party candidate at this stage in the cycle if not for another personal contribution he made. And not in campaign messaging that hasn’t evolved since the distant primary phase, when insults and racially tinged remarks drew bold headlines.”
“All three elements will prove difficult to fix. But none might be as devastating as anemic fundraising, so long as big donors either sit on the sidelines or mull their options in congressional races. Those desperate to block Trump’s nomination before the convention have the fodder they need, just not a winning strategy or mechanism – at least not yet.”
“If Donald Trump’s claims that certain of his commercial ventures benefit charity are untrue, he could be held liable under Section 349 of New York’s General Business Law, which forbids deceptive business acts and practices, as well as under charitable solicitation laws, according to legal experts,” Politico reports.
“In promoting products as varied as Trump University, Trump Vodka, a Trump board game and his latest book, Crippled America, the businessman has declared that the proceeds would go to charity. None of Trump’s proceeds from Trump University have gone to charity, and only a few hundred dollars of charitable giving related to Trump Vodka has been accounted for.”
A new CNN/ORC poll finds that 51% of Republican voters want Donald Trump nominated at the GOP convention next month while 48% want someone else.
Stuart Rothenberg: “Trump and his allies argue that his appeal among populist voters will help carry Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and possibly even Michigan (16) and New Jersey (14), radically changing the political map and giving him a number of potential routes to victory.”
“That seems unlikely. President Obama’s margin in each of the four states was significantly greater than his overall national margin in 2012. He won nationally by 3.9 points but his margin was 5.4 points in Pennsylvania and 6.9 points in Wisconsin. Republican strategists begin almost every presidential election talking about snatching Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from the Democratic column, and each time they have failed.”
“The idea that New Jersey – or New York and California, which Trump has said he’ll put into play – will be a battlefield in the fall is nothing short of delusional. The mere fact that Trump and his strategists are talking about winning any of those three states undermines the credibility of their overall argument.”
Trump's gotten rich driving companies into the ground. What will he do to the U.S. economy?
Oh wait—we know:https://t.co/MOPrGekYtZ
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 21, 2016
Markos says Hillary is not pivoting to the center. She is doubling down on the left:
Our top, most high-profile Democrat is not afraid to stick with the same populist tone that was perfectly at home in a Democratic primary. And it isn’t because Clinton or Democrats are out of touch the way, say, Donald Trump and his GOP are. It’s because we are in sync with the American people.
[Her] speech [yesterday] isn’t the first sign that there is no “pivot” in Clinton’s rhetoric. How about Clinton’s Planned Parenthood speech a couple of weeks ago, in which she mentioned the word “abortion” 18 times?
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said that delegates to next month’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland should “vote the way they see fit,” which could mean not necessarily supporting presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, Politico reports.
Said Walker: “I think historically, not just this year, delegates are and should be able to vote the way they see fit. We’ll see how things go between now and the convention as to what the next steps are. I’m not going to speculate now only because you all know the situation may change by this afternoon, let alone between now and the convention.”
Mark Cuban personally attacked Donald Trump, telling Extra that Trump has been running for president for a year “but you don’t look at him and say, ‘Wow, he’s gotten so much smarter on this topic or that topic.’ In fact, you look at him and say, ‘What the hell are you talking about?’”
He added: “It’s rare that you see someone get stupider before your eyes, but he’s really working at it… You have to give him credit. It’s a difficult thing to do but he’s accomplished it.”
Don’t miss David Bier’s piece at Newsweek which highlights “a year of Trump’s campaign in 59 crazy policies:”
Perhaps worst of all, Trump’s proposals expose how broad he thinks the powers of the presidency are: virtually infinite. There is never a glimmer of understanding that the government is bound by the Constitution, that the federal government has limited scope and authority, or that the presidency is just one of three equal branches of the federal government.
Instead, it is Trump, and Trump alone, who will transform American laws, government and society from the top down.
Trump will bomb and invade countries. Trump will steal their oil. Trump will kill deserters, torture suspects, bypass courts, ban Muslims, break treaties and have the military do things like mass executions with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood—all while getting Americans to say “merry Christmas” again.
Regarding the American Chapter of ISIS’s (otherwise known as Senate Republicans) refusal to pass common sense gun safety laws yesterday, USA Today pens a scathing editorial on the Senate’s inaction:
[I]n an extraordinary act of cowardice on Monday evening, 56 senators — 53 Republicans joined by three Democrats — threw away yet another opportunity to keep guns out of the hands of more felons, fugitives, the mentally ill or people prone to domestic violence.
These spineless lawmakers voted against advancing a commonsense measure to expand background checks to virtually all sales of guns, not just those sold by federally licensed dealers. The existing gap allows buyers who purchase from private sellers at gun shows, online or from newspaper ads to simply avoid the federal background check system. […]
Those who want to prevent future mass killings apparently will need to look outside Congress for help. Monday’s votes showed, once again, that too many members are too cowed by the gun lobby to take the actions necessary to save lives.
The @MoveOn video by Eliz Warren… WOW!!
Whatever else happens, Trump is (and will continue to be) a gift to Warren as she makes the case that this economy has gone off the rails and is in desperate need of fixing.
And I have to believe, given Hillary’s speech yesterday, and the release of this video by Warren and MoveOn yesterday, that this was coordinated among Clinton and Warren and MoveOn. That speaks well of the Bernie and Hillary factions coming together (given that MoveOn endorsed Bernie in the primary).
Gary Simpson with the most asinine quote of the day/month/year:
‘Minority Leader F. Gary Simpson, R-Milford, in arguing against passage, said longer waiting periods could endanger Delaware’s “most vulnerable women, who we have pledged to protect as men.”
Simpson said potential victims of rape, domestic abuse and other forms of assault rely on firearms to protect themselves.
“Probably most of the women – the adult women in this room – are protected by a gun at home,” Simpson said. “I rise in opposition to this bill. I rise in defense of defenseless women.”’
Hmm… If the perpetrators of rape, domestic abuse and other forms of assault have free and easy access to guns, then the victims need that too.
That logic checks out.
I know he is older, but was he elected in 1945, or just frozen in time and thawed for a later vote?
Yep, that quote is the most asinine quote of the day/month/year. There’s so much going on with it. Let’s break it down, shall we?
‘Minority Leader F. Gary Simpson, R-Milford, in arguing against passage, said longer waiting periods could endanger Delaware’s “most vulnerable women, who we have pledged to protect as men.”
Is this all women, or just Delaware’s most vulnerable women? Did the men on here take a pledge?
Simpson said potential victims of rape, domestic abuse and other forms of assault rely on firearms to protect themselves.
Yeah, because that always works out so well.
“Probably most of the women – the adult women in this room – are protected by a gun at home,” Simpson said. “I rise in opposition to this bill. I rise in defense of defenseless women.”’
I’m still trying to figure out how these defenseless women are protected by a gun? By the men who took the pledge? Are they using the gun, or is a man using it to protect them? Does he see all women as vulnerable? In need of protection? Or is he simply using women as an excuse to stroke his gun? (Ding! Ding! Ding!) I swear, the need of some men to make up scenarios in order to justify their fetishes is shameless. This isn’t about “protecting” women. It’s about protecting guns.
His argument worked well. Every woman in the Senate voted for the bill.
Oh, wait…
Here’s an open thread topic. Why not more on this Matt Meyer character? Are there grudges against him about which I am unaware? Do we just assume any challenge to TP Gordon is doomed? Was there a post I missed?
It seems to me like the more active contributors here are all about challenging local entrenched pseudo-Democrat, corporate, centrist shrills (PC Schwartzkopf, the three Cs Messrs. Carper, Coons and Carney, Markell, et al.). No endorsement of Meyer though. Even short of an endorsement, no kind words or anything…
I understand the soap opera of national politics is the baited hook & twinkling lure for you little stream trout, but some more info from the small stream would be nice. Seems like we should get behind this Meyer cat, no? Gordon OUT! No?
^ second!
I have met Matt Meyer a few times since he has announced and dont some research into him. Very pleasant guy who struck me as genuine.
He’s definitely young, maybe a bit of a political novice, but I have seen so much (justified and agreed with) displeasure leveled at Tom Gordon here, you’d think a real challenger would at least get some attention.
Dorian… Out of curiosity, are you as charming in person as you are in the comments section?
There is no way I can vote for Gordon. I will most likely vote for Meyer. That being said, he needs to make sure he tailors his message to his audience. His stump speech mentions better schools, improved roads, etc. While that is great rhetoric for the masses who do not understand what county government does, it does not work on Dem party die-hards and those who know government. He’s lost endorsements because many committee members feel he does not understand the job he is running for.
I’ve spoken with him on a couple of occasions and know for a fact he understands it. It makes it that much more frustrating when he continues to use the same speech in front of those who do as well. I want him to beat Gordon, sincerely, but eventually some “news” source is going to call him out on this and he needs to have an explanation, or plan, or something to back up his assertions. If anyone knows him well, please let him know that he needs to read the audience better and make sure he’s not blowing smoke at a fan.
Joe… It’s not really for me to say, is it? Ask Pandora or Jason.
Dorian is a good guy. He just can be …. strident… on some issues. LOL.
As for Meyer, I am going to try to get an interview with him in July. We are all most definitely for him. It’s just that most of us are not focused on county politics, but rather state, national and Wilmington.
That means a great deal to me. Especially from a guy who recently wrote a post titled, “Bernie Sanders Can Go Fuck Himself.”
THAT’S RIGHT!!!!!!!! Civil war is BACK ON!
LOL. We’ll always have this:
To be clear, I mention that post solely to indicate the richness of DD’s characterization of me as sometimes strident. I suppose it’s an accurate adjective, just funny that he’d use it.
I have no interest in discussing the national presidential election.
Meyer gets my vote simply by having the incredible fortune of being a bi-ped mammal not named Tom Gordon… Anything beyond that is gravy…
I’d vote for Howard the Duck over Tom Gordon… If Emperor Palpatine were running unopposed, that might be my write-in.
Did you see TNJ story about Gordon’s daughter taking responsibility for a social media account that trashed Grimaldi and that Grimaldi is suing over? Appears to be an attempt to prevent further discovery, which would probably (just playing the odds) show that Gordon was behind it. I make that guess because the daughter made such a point of saying she, and she alone, was the guilty party.
The amazing thing to me is that none of these people is from Appalachia.
If I was going to have to hide out in a cabin for a year and had to pick someone to go on the lamb with, Dorian Gray would be on my short list.
Prop Joe, I had to Google biped. #wordoftheday
I am supportive of Matt Meyer. I’m discouraged to see nearly as many signs for Gordon as Meyer in my neighborhood. And I just don’t get it.
anonymous, you should credit WDEL for that story and view the video interview. TNJ ran it the following day on the front page.
Carney joined the sit-in
Jason’s head just exploded. He is not prepared for a world in which Carney takes a stand on something
DD, add me to that list. I’ve never seen John Carney take a stand on anything unless directed to do so by party leadership. Maybe it’s what Beau wanted him to do.
“Jason’s head just exploded. He is not prepared for a world in which Carney takes a stand on something”
Or even a sit on something.
But seriously folks, I wonder if Carney can use the bipartisanship street cred he’s built up to get some R’s to have seat? I mean he has some really great friends on the R side, right?
Back to national politics for a minute. I just read this NBC piece “fact checking” Trump. Now the concept that one needs to fact-check Trump is pretty laughable, but I read this, then I read this again, and I thought, “This is one really shitty piece of supposed ‘fact checking’ even in a presidential campaign year.'”
Somebody want to read this and tell me if I’m just having a bad day, or is this piece as poorly constructed as I think it is–try the Trump quote that’s supposed to prove he said in 2002 that he supported the Iraq invasion … that doesn’t actually say that.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051?google_editors_picks=true
I dunno, I had no problem following it. The Iraq war question has been plumbed before — check the link — and it’s hard to find an actual coherent thought in anything he said.
At this point, why bother fact-checking him? Most of what he says is incomplete or exaggerated, and none of it shows any understanding of whatever he’s talking about. Instead of fact-checking the speech, why hasn’t any media outlet done a deep dive on the Clinton Foundation?
That is her most vulnerable point, but he’s too undisciplined to exploit it.