Open Thread for Thursday, September 22, 2016
PRESIDENT
NATIONAL–NBC/Wall Street Journal–Clinton 48, Trump 41
NATIONAL–Pew Research Center–Clinton 45, Trump 38
NATIONAL–American Research Group–Clinton 47, Trump 44
NORTH CAROLINA–PPP–Trump 45, Clinton 43
WISCONSIN–Marquette–Clinton 41, Trump 38
NEW HAMPSHIRE–Monmouth–Clinton 47, Trump 38
U.S. SENATE
WISCONSIN–Marquette–Feingold 47, Johnson 41
NEW HAMPSHIRE–Monmouth–Ayotte 47, Hassan 45
NORTH CAROLINA–PPP–Burr 41, Ross 41
NEVADA–Rasmussen–Heck 44, Cortez Masto 40
CALIFORNIA–Field–Harris 42, Sanchez 20
GOVERNOR
NEW HAMPSHIRE–Monmouth–Sununu 49, Van Ostern 43
NORTH CAROLINA–PPP–Cooper 50, McCrory 43
Donald Trump faced a swift backlash after declaring that African Americans are “in the worst shape they’ve ever been” during a campaign event in North Carolina, the Washington Post reports. “The comments drew immediate criticism on social media from critics who accused him of failing to consider the United States’ history with slavery and North Carolina’s history with Jim Crow laws and segregation.”
And one of Donald Trump’s solutions: nationwide stop and frisk. “We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well,” Trump said of the practice, which empowered police officers to stop a person on the street for a pat-down if they suspected him or her of wrongdoing. In fact, data showed that the practice effectively turned into racial profiling that disproportionately targeted black New Yorkers. Studies also found that stop-and-frisk was ineffective in catching criminals or preventing crime. A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional in 2013. Not to mention, I thought Republicans were for less government? What Trump is calling for is a nationwide police state that can stop any citizen for any reason (because we are talking about the subjective thoughts of a cop, and recent evidence demonstrates wrongdoing equals being black).
Harry Enten: “Among the swing states, there are particular ones that Trump and Clinton need to avoid losing. If their opponent is ahead there, it’s an almost a sure sign to the candidates that they’re losing the election: For Trump, these are the light-red states (e.g., Ohio, Florida and Iowa); for Clinton, they are the light-blue states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia).”
“Hillary Clinton is preparing for two different foes in Monday’s presidential debate: an on-message, disciplined Donald Trump and a freewheeling, more provocative Donald Trump,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“The Democratic nominee has cleared her schedule on multiple days to test arguments and practice for her first 90-minute matchup with the GOP nominee. This week, she has convened a small group of top advisers to run through potential questions and help her anticipate an assortment of scenarios.”
“In contrast, Mr. Trump has played down the value of doing dry runs and warned of the perils of over-preparation.”
In July 2015, NBC/WSJ poll showed 47% said immigration helps more than hurts (43% said hurts more than helps). Now it's 54% helps/35% hurts pic.twitter.com/nv8TpUObDD
— Nick Gourevitch (@nickgourevitch) September 21, 2016
Here's another one from a Fox News poll a few weeks ago. Fewer Americans support mass deportation since Trump began his campaign: pic.twitter.com/81G9tSPy4k
— Nick Gourevitch (@nickgourevitch) September 21, 2016
Clinton’s two fundamental problems are persistently high minor-party undecided votes that allow Trump to remain competitive despite low absolute numbers, and growing indications of a GOP turnout advantage attributable to greater enthusiasm. The simple solution to both problems is to use the debates to raise the stakes for the election by leaving no one under the illusion that a “protest vote” or a decision to stay home will have anything less than apocalyptic consequences.
With Clinton’s speech targeting millennial voters yesterday, it is becoming clear she understands that left-leaning voters who are contemplating a vote for Johnson or Stein — or who may just stay home — are as big a threat to her prospects as the stubborn Republicans who are manifestly not following #NeverTrump conservative elites out of the Trump column. Monday’s first debate offers a heaven-sent opportunity for her to make it clear there is indeed a lot more than a dime’s difference between the two major-party candidates, and that life will take a turn for the worse for each and every meh liberal voter if Trump becomes president. Fortunately for her, the same aggressive tactics that could wake up such voters might also light a fire beneath the “base” voters who seem inclined to mosey on down to the polls on November 8, while Trump’s angry legions snake-dance toward victory in a slow-motion white riot.
Compare the reactions of Gen. Flynn and the woman he’s sitting next to when Don King uses the n-word. pic.twitter.com/IKZ7edDU0S
— Philip Bump (@pbump) September 21, 2016
Rick Klein: “It took until almost 10:30 pm last night for the Trump campaign to put out its statement on the latest Washington Post revelations about the Trump Foundation. This one accused the Post of ‘inaccuracies and omissions’ and ‘wrong’ facts – and proceeded to enumerate precisely zero items from any of those categories. It’s response by bluster, on paper, replacing actual answers to valid questions. (The paper trail in the latest report – documenting personal business legal settlements covered by Trump’s charitable foundation – is particularly solid, and has not been refuted by anyone in and around Trump.) Tuesday night, Mike Pence applauded his running mate for answering media questions ‘just about every day.’ But a summer story-line has flipped as we head into fall: Trump hasn’t held a full-fledged news conference since July.”
“His campaign’s scorching attacks on media organizations who dig in on his business or personal dealings are designed to obfuscate, not illuminate. A campaign that’s focused on ‘Crooked Hillary’ is going to have a harder time making that case without a straighter posture.”
Meanwhile, Hillary has a press conference every day now. And the Clinton Foundation is above reproach.
Trump's "African-American" town hall on Hannity pic.twitter.com/MINAQ9rbXY
— Brandon English (@brandonenglish) September 21, 2016
Kevin Drum makes the progressive case for Hillary Clinton.
For a lot of liberals, the most important goal of this election is to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. And since Trump naturally sucks up most of the political oxygen, that means lots of blogging about Trump and not so much about Clinton.
But a lot of lefties aren’t happy about that. They want a positive argument in favor of voting for Clinton, not just a negative one for voting against Trump. That’s fair enough, so I figured I’d put one together.
The positive argument he makes contains 84 items that you’ll want to check out.
The @nytimes editorial board drops the hammer re Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns https://t.co/KNCBENZdhf
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) September 21, 2016
Matt Latimer: “Time and again, Trump has survived what only a few years ago would have been considered career-ending gaffes… This defies all the rules of public life as we’ve come to understand them. For decades, a single spontaneous outburst (John Kerry’s ‘I was for it before I was against it’), a pompous proclamation (whatever Al Gore intended to say about his role in the Internet), a cuckoo pronouncement (George Romney’s claim to have been ‘brainwashed’ about the Vietnam War), or even an embarrassing misspelling (Dan Quayle’s infamous attempt to correctly write the word ‘potato’ on a blackboard), caused irreparable, often campaign-ending damage.”
“Trump has done all these things—some of them multiple times in the same day. The gaffe hasn’t destroyed Trump; it’s made him stronger. The reasons for this are instructive, and they will change the way politics is practiced forever.”
Watch: President @BillClinton closes the final @ClintonGlobal Annual Meeting. #CGI2016 pic.twitter.com/Pj7WietSdF
— CGI (@ClintonGlobal) September 21, 2016
Phillip Rucker noticed Hillary Clinton’s pivot.
Hillary Clinton has decided it’s about time she do more talking about Hillary Clinton.
After a year and a half of running for president, the Democratic nominee has concluded that many Americans still do not have a clear understanding of what motivates her or what she would do as president. So in the campaign’s home stretch, Clinton is trying to reintroduce herself and her ideas to the country.
Looks like the Senate is slipping away. That sucks but is pretty predictable when the Democrats can’t get a coherent affirmative message out, and instead, rely on scare tactics. Jeebus… how many elections do the Dems have to narrowly win, or lose, to get the message that Dem and “swing” voters will turn out to vote FOR something, but will stay home when being asked to vote AGAINST shit? Many more I suppose.
If Sanders or even better Liz Warren was the candidate I would be working and contributing to the campaign. As it is now, I’m still not sure who I am voting for. This super delegate thing still has me pissed it. The fix is in with Democratic party and the republicans are hateful rubes. How can I be excited about who I’m voting for? And I’m supposed to be motivated by having to vote against the carnival barker. And I can tell you, I’m not voting for Carney. Sad, very sad!
Interesting that you clipped Matt Latermer where you did. This is the money:
“Trump is not only making gaffes, he’s brashly owning them, daring the political gods to smite him in what has become an epic rebuke to the dull, predictable, cautious political culture that everyone outside the Beltway has learned to recognize and abhor. In terror of the gaffe, candidates have increasingly immersed their true selves behind carefully vetted talking points, anodyne scripts, and cynical consultants, all with the primary purpose of suffocating in its cradle anything approaching a cavalier statement, never mind a surprising or provocative thought.
The culmination of this effort is before us: the enthusiasm-starved campaign of Hillary Clinton, who over her decades in politics has perfected the talent of making even the most cutting-edge idea immediately sound like a cliche. Set against this apotheosis of safe, gaffe-free politics, millions have delightedly embraced a man who seems to recognize their appetite for something recognizably real, even if it’s vulgar and offensive. His gaffes aren’t a sideshow: they’re integral to his pitch. For this cohort, a vote for Trump is a vote to make the safe, protected, consultant-scripted lives of everyone in D.C. miserable every single day, because they’ve earned it.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trumps-guide-to-winning-through-gaffes-214269#ixzz4KzMh33Gl
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Mouse, I try to like you. I do. But this…It is just dumb.
“If Sanders or even better Liz Warren was the candidate I would be working and contributing to the campaign. As it is now, I’m still not sure who I am voting for.”
Mouse, just vote for Trump. It would complete your journey into a piece of shit.
If you are voting in Delaware, your vote really isn’t responsible for the Presidential outcome. Voting for President in Delaware is more of a personal moral dilemma. If you want your Presidential vote to matter, move to a swing state.
I don’t like the idea of super delegates either, but not for the reasons Mouse has. The fact is that Hillary had a majority of the delegates WITHOUT super delegates. I am opposed to super delegates because they do not participate in the delegation caucuses and while the rest of us are in our seats at the Wells Fargo center for the day’s business, most of the super delegates are not even in town, or, if they are, they are at the fancy dinner receptions while the rest of us are choosing between Chick Filet and pizza.
Quite frankly, how can anyone be uncertain about their vote at this point? What Trump represents and what he espouses is as close to the fascist era of the 1930’s as we could be.
“Quite frankly, how can anyone be uncertain about their vote at this point?
I don’t believe for a second Mouse,or anyone else, is uncertain. Okay, maybe if you have never heard of either candidate, read anything (including DL 😉 ), watched TV, etc. you can be conflicted because you know nothing. Otherwise, this is just some sort of game. My advice is to stop playing it with him.
Clinton gets awkward with Zach Galifianakis on ‘Between Two Ferns’
I actually felt sorry for Hillary. I hear this show is popular – I can’t say I’m a fan of “cringe humor.” I think Jon Stewart’s legacy is safe.
Mitch’s reference to the 1930s is spot on. At another point in our history, we went all-in on laissez faire at home and in trade, as we have since the 1980s. The result, as today, was spiraling inequality and widespread discontent. In many countries, the result was a turn to authoritarianism. Whether the United States would also go that way was a live question at the time.
As was the case when FDR was elected, and as President Obama (too) softly alluded to in his UN speech, the United States and the world today are badly in need of a “course correction,” one that will “curb the excesses of capitalism,” “not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it.”
Hillary Clinton is no FDR, but she is at least being prodded in that direction by the likes of Sanders and Warren in her party. Trump represents the authoritarian turn that other countries took in the 1930s but the United States did not. To treat the choices as morally equivalent is morally irresponsible.
“Quite frankly, how can anyone be uncertain about their vote at this point? What Trump represents and what he espouses is as close to the fascist era of the 1930’s as we could be.”
As an independent, I am voting for Clinton because I generally agree with her approach to the issues and because in spite of the fact that she is a crappy campaigner, I believe she can and will be effective at governance and leading (she might need help on the bully pulpit for the sheep though).
Regardless, I am also voting against Trump because of what he stands for and against. I fervently believe that a complete repudiation of Trump is necessary, not just for today but for tomorrow; for the yet to be Trump Jrs.
Voting for Stein or anyone else or no one else, sends no message to anyone. It’s just fodder for the pundits. It means nothing in the scheme of things. It’s sort of like peeing your pants while wearing a dark suit — you get a warm feeling but no one else notices.
Winning is important, but winning big is also important. So even though I live in Delaware, my vote is important. So is everyone’s.
P.S. I never held out much hope for the Senate and will be satisfied with just the Presidency for reasons stated.
The Republic has withstood 8 years of executive stupidity, but could it withstand even 4 years of very robustly malicious executive stupidity? That is a question a Trump Presidency could answer, so at least there is that.
There are maybe 30% of Americans, spanning both all parties, who year for the ease and stark black and white simplicity of authoritarianism. If they can convince another 21% of voters to try out authoritarianism because … why not..? Then those authoritarian ideas about efficiency and simplicity will be tested against reality and we’ll see how they do.
So I wonder if these are the people that mouse can get “excited” to be aligned with:
Trump campaign chair in Ohio says there was ‘no racism’ before Obama
or even these people who have a new life:
How America’s dying white supremacist movement is seizing on Donald Trump’s appeal
Because the people who are excited about voting for Trump are going to be a real threat to portions of this American community.
This:
“Because the people who are excited about voting for Trump are going to be a real threat to portions of this American community.”
If you need “inspiration” in this election, or are uncertain of who to vote for in the Presidential election, my bet is that you aren’t part of these portions of the American community.
If I were heavily involved in the Democratic party as apparently most of you are, I would take pause with the comments and criticism I offered rather than attacking me. There’s millions like me who aren’t sure they want to vote for Clinton over Stein. This is a legitimate dilemma for me. I’ve been back and forth several times in my own head over this and ask everyone I know about it. And who will benefit if Carney wins over Bonini? State employees? Wilmington? Attacking people who have such concerns is little different than the nutty republican purity test!
Super delegates make a difference in early states and create momentum which almost always leads to victory.
So now I’m a Trump supporter for not falling in line lol, bad strategy..
You’re a Trump supporter because you cant say with certainty that you are voting against him. He is a clear danger to humanity. If you even stand by and let him take power without a fight, you are just as responsible for what happens as the people who worked toward his election.
And stop blaming Clinton on the DNC. Did you not see how many clueless Bernie supporters didn’t know they had to be registered Dem to vote for him? Or the ones that only caught on once his interaction with a sky-mouse was trending on Twitter? He failed to generate the buzz early enough. One could say the fix was in back in 08 as well, but Obama managed to actually run a great campaign and win, despite a clear establishment preference for Clinton. Get the hell over it. You can either hold you nose (like im gonna do) and vote to stop WW3, or be to blame for this country moving to the brink. coward.
“Super delegates make a difference in early states and create momentum which almost always leads to victory.”
Yeah, because that’s what happened in 2008.
I really don’t get you, Mouse. You constantly post about your days at the beach and the beauty you find there, and yet you seem willing to discard environmental issues in this election – by considering a 3rd party candidate who had no chance of winning, but by voting for you could help Trump. Because that will help the environment.
If I’m not mistaken, you were a Sanders’ supporter. This feels like 2008 all over again. It’s the PUMAs who told us they would vote for McCain, or third party, because their candidate (who, like today, agreed with the other candidate on 90% of the issues) didn’t win. I’ll tell you what I told them – I can’t help but doubt your support for your candidate, because it doesn’t seem issue based.
As a longtime Green presidential voter, I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for Jill Stein, even as a protest. She has said things in this campaign, particularly about vaccinations, that are as deplorable as some of Trump’s inanities.
Ok dammit, I’ve been coerced back into the Clinton column. I’ll proudly tell my daughter that I’m voting for the status quo for wars, job outsourcing, corporate abuse, Wall Street fraud and the like rather than Stein whose policies I believe in because if I don’t some nutcase might get elected.
Great. Itll be a good lesson for her. You have to make compromises in life and consider all the consequences. Sometimes you have to do things you’d really rather not do, in order to avoid catastrophe.
“Ok dammit, I’ve been coerced back into the Clinton column.”
Don’t do that. Vote your principles and values. But there are two parts to your vote. One is voting for Clinton because she is aligned with your principles. The other is voting against Trump because he is anathema to your values and principles.
As an adult your values and principles ought to be more developed than sound bites and slogans. If they are not then I would examine them to determine why. Many people are heavily influenced by slogans, especially when it comes to making America great again. If you have read Clintons material on the issues and what her goals and objectives are AND your disagree with them, then fine. However you are still left with the problem of making America great again.
I would have no problem telling my daughter how I voted and why and I’m not even a Democrat. In fact, I don’t even like Democrats (present company excepted).
I wasn’t aware of the vaccine issue. Thanks good points too.
http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
I’m enthusiastically voting for Hillary, and there are reasons to not vote for Dr. Stein, but I’m not sure the vaccine stance is a valid reason.
What are the other reasons?
She considers Trump to be less of a threat than Clinton. Her words. Her clueless, arrogant, disqualifying words.
Let’s start with the fact that she hasn’t been elected to anything above town council. In getting elected, she garnered fewer votes than the winner in a 6 person field in the last contested school board election in the Appoquinimink School District (Michelle Wall – 609 votes).
It’s hard to take her seriously with those kinds of bona fides.
Are we really having this conversation again? It always takes the same path – and next week we’ll be doing this all over again.
I agree with Pandora. Ignore Mouse.
@LG: In the same way that many of Trump’s overwrought but seemingly random memes turn out to have originated with the alt-right, Stein’s remarks about vaccines are finely-pitched dog whistles from and for the anti-vaxxers. Her motivations and criticisms of the system mostly align with mine, but even playing footsie with the anti-vaxxers is enough for her to lose my vote.
I’m sorry, I’ll try and be more compliant.
I don’t think of this as paying attention to mouse, as much as giving mouse something to do besides posting about life at the beach. No posting about relaxing off-season beachiness while I sit in a cubicle with a view of a parking lot.
Josh Marshall once again seems to understand the motivations of Trumpzilla:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-back-to-birtherism-after-five-days
I didn’t see this Jamelle Bouie piece from last night until just now. It’s germane to both BLM/police conflicts and the election. His thesis: The “Beer Summit” marked a turning point for Obama with white Americans:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/the_henry_louis_gates_beer_summit_and_racial_division_in_america.html
Good thing we can’t post pictures lol. I haven’t figured out what beach to go to today. I’m thinking Bethany though and bike the trail
And Pandora, I work a hell of a lot harder working and lobbying for the protection of the inland bays than any of you kids up there! In fact, the inland bays are a state wide and regional resource that are largely ignored by up state folk..
Which was my point, no?
Perhaps, but I was taken back a bit by you saying I am willing to disregard environmental issues. In fact, I’m gathering people now as we speak to got to the new land use hearing on monday. If you have anyone up there willing to send comments regard buffers, density, forestation and the like, it would be very helpful
http://sussexplan.com/
If Trump wins, and he and the GOP relax or get rid of environmental protections – due, in part, to people voting third party – then your issue is in peril. If environmental issues matter to you (and it sounds like they do) then I don’t understand your dilemma/uncertainty with voting.
Guess I’m a bit slow at times and need more convincing that some folk. Thanks!
In case any of the poll-watchers among us missed it, NYTimes’ Upshot ran an interesting polling experiment. It commissioned one pollster to gather the data and four other pollsters to collate it. Naturally, they got four different results:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/20/upshot/the-error-the-polling-world-rarely-talks-about.html?_r=0
“I’m enthusiastically voting for Hillary, and there are reasons to not vote for Dr. Stein, but I’m not sure the vaccine stance is a valid reason.”
I disagree vociferously. Stein has made statements in support of vaccinations, but she’s also made statements that call their safeness into question. Stein wants to have it both ways by claiming the moral authority of a doctor while simultaneously giving cover to her supporters, many of whom are anti-vaxxers, and that is very dangerous and possibly immoral. The anti-vax crowd looks for any excuse to undermine the efficacy of vaccines, and Stein gives them the fuel for the fire, wittingly or no. If she wants to make clear her stance on vaccines then she has to not only state her belief in their safety, but also condemn those who would call their safety into question. Nothing else will suffice.