Update: sorry about comments being closed. I don’t know how that happened, and no one has been able to figure it out how to enable them. I’ll just say our CMS system is very much not my favorite.
In this article on how the presidential election looks state by state, they spent a lot of pixels on Pennsylvania and Florida. There’s good reason, since Pennsylvania might be drifting right and Florida left. This perennial swing state Pennsylvania becoming friendlier for Republicans, and polling Hillary and Trump evenly is a legitimate story, as is Florida giving Hillary maybe they first sizable lead any presidential candidate has had there since the days of the “solid South”, but it’s also story of just two states. They buried the lead a bit. Sort of … they did put Pennsylvania and Florida in the title, but it seems the movement of two states isn’t the big story. This seems like the big story: they project Hillary has 279 electoral votes after they moved Florida to lean D and Pennsylvania to toss up, which means,
A presidential candidate needs 270 Electoral Votes to become president. In other words, if Clinton wins just the states leaning in her direction, she would be president without needing any of the toss up states — Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio or Pennsylvania.
That’s not just a win. That’s a wave. The predictable caveats apply, like it’s still June and the election is months away. Anything could happen and some things will. We don’t know the effect of the voter suppression laws a bunch of Republican state governments have put in place since 2012. Maybe Trump is as smart as he claims to be and loads of new voters will be coming out to for him. Maybe the polls are grossly wrong and he’s really way ahead. Maybe Mexicans and Muslims really do love him. Nah, I don’t buy those last three either.
Different analysts might come up with different results on a state or two, but essentially, they all come up with the same result: Hillary is winning without even winning the toss up states, let alone flipping any light red states. Not only that, but some red states are looking a light shade of red. No, I’m not buying the close vote in Utah, and even Arizona and Georgia are likely to revert to their mean and come around to Trump, but the fact we’re even this conversation means we could be looking at a wave.
Not that a blowout is a wave. A big win for Hillary doesn’t necessarily entail coattails for downballot candidates to hang on to — but it could. It will be no surprise I’m happy to hear, given my plea for Hillary to compete for winnable congressional seats in this non-competitve state of mine, that she’s pursuing a 50-state strategy. It’s the same thing Howard Dean was pursuing when he chaired the DNC, and he’s working with Hillary on this.
Did Donald Trump even know what “Brexit” was when he was first asked about it? The answer seems obvious:
“And Brexit? Your position?” I ask.
“The Brits leaving the EU,” I prompt, realizing that his lack of familiarity with one of the most pressing issues in Europe is for him no concern nor liability at all.
“Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”
Any bets on whether he was hoping the interviewer would clue him in on what the EU is? Probably lots of Americans had no idea what “Brexit” was, but they aren’t a major party’s nominee for president, and they probably didn’t form an instant opinion on something they knew nothing about. Trump, who knows nothing about what’s going on with arguably the most important nation in the world as far as America’s concerned, wants to be entrusted with American foreign policy.
So on the day after the vote, with Britons deeply split and financial markets in a panic, did he show he learned anything? Let’s put it this way: he tweeted “Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!”
I’m just going to start with the conclusion and say I think Hillary is going to pick Elizabeth Warren for vice-president, and the related point, that seems like a good choice. That’s admittedly doing some reading of the proverbial tea leaves, and tea leaf reading has such a poor record with predicting vice-presidential picks, that I make that prediction with low confidence. I can’t think of a strong counter-argument, so file that lack of confidence under “predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
And certainly, I’m not in Hillary’s confidence, at least not since trying to fool her with that Bill costume. You make just one bad decision, as I tried to explain to the Secret Service guy…
Warren is one of a number of people mentioned in reports based on leaks, or maybe claims of leaks, and reports based on anonymous whoever. For example, “Clinton has also begun to winnow a list of more than a dozen potential choices, another senior Democrat said.” Well, if “another senior Democrat” said it, who can argue? Hillary has met with Warren more than once. Warren endorsed Hillary in an interview with Rachel Maddow, and when asked if she would be ready to be president if she was vice-president and the worst happened to Hillary, she just out and out said yes. Maybe she’s just that self-confident, but that sounded like someone who had been seriously thinking about it.
Then there are the reports Senate minority leader Harry Reid is looking into Massachusetts’ unusual procedure for replacing a senator. Maybe he’s just idly curious. What a coincidence.
Vox looked at strength and weaknesses of list of candidates supposedly leaked. It seems a plausible list, and most names are popping up elsewhere. All the candidates have strengths and weaknesses, but what sticks out is that Warren has the strongest strengths, and the most addressable weaknesses. Others have weaknesses like lack of campaign experience, lack of governing experience, low name recognition, and to connect to my point about Reid, a bunch are incumbent senators whose replacements would be chosen by Republican governors. So if Hillary wins, a senate seat flips to the Republicans. I actually thought AL Franken and Amy Klobuchar would be considered, not just for what they might bring to the ticket, but because their replacement would be chosen by a Democratic governor. Warren’s replacement, though picked by a Republican, would be temporary since Massachusetts requires a special election 160 days after the vacancy occurs, not coincidental with the next even numbered general election like most states. In other words, picking Warren entails less risk of ceding a Senate seat than if several other rumored candidates were chosen.
And here’s an oddball reason for thinking Warren will get picked: Wall Street is convinced she won’t be.
Should Hillary spend money on Minnesota? Just to cut to the chase, yes, but that’s admittedly a hard case to make given how Minnesota has voted for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election since 1956 except for 1972, when we made our what-the-hell-were-we-thinking mistake and voted for the one president who resigned in disgrace. I personally think of Minnesota not as a blue state, but as a purple state where the Democrats are good at GOTV (Get Out The Vote). But yeah, hard to argue with that presidential record. Or with how much better financed the DFL is than the MNGOP, or with the DFL record in statewide races. We’ve won every statewide race starting in 2006 except for governor in 2006, when Tim Pawlenty won by about 1% while a third party liberal took 5%. It was that close.
So OK, my purple state claim is resting pretty much on the way the legislature keeps changing hands, and the way we split US House seats 4-4 or 5-3. But that also gets to why we deserve some presidential campaign attention. We want to win the House, right? That seems incredibly optimistic to me, but the Republicans are fearfully talking about it as a plausible outcome, and I suppose they have to be right one day. Besides, if we want to win the House, we have to nibble away where we can, giving more Democrats the advantage of incumbency the next election — and Minnesota has more competitive districts than anyone would expect from a medium sized state.
As it happens, Minnesota isn’t gerrymandered. Really. Yes, we’re self-packed like every other state with a major metropolitan area. Liberals are comfortable with a big city’s density and proximity to public spaces, while conservatives like their big lawns and long drives. Like in almost every other state, this works to the advantage of conservatives since there’s no way to draw district lines to break up liberals unless we ignore the principle that municipalities should be kept together, and when those municipalities are big, self-packing it is. Fortunately, not being gerrymandered means our districts aren’t drawn in strange ways to get the most advantageous distribution of conservatives. Our process is each house of the legislature passes a redistricting plan, then a conference committee works out the differences, and the governor signs it, with one of the latter two steps never happening. Our state government has been split between parties something like the last five redistrictings, so a panel of judges eventually gives up on the other two branches and just makes its own plan.
Like I mentioned in a non-sequitor at the end of this post, I plan to live blog the DFL convention Saturday. That depends on The Uptake having a livestream as in recent conventions, since I can’t be there in person, due to medical issues I assume readers don’t care about the details of. Since anyone can watch the stream, I’ll try to focus on explanations and commentary. Open this post and refresh it once in a while. I’ll check the comments occasionally for questions. I’m still typing more slowly than usual so it could be tricky, but I’ll give a game effort. If you want to see the agenda, that’s on the state DFL web site. It doesn’t give a specific convening time, but from the ending time of training sessions, looks like it will start around 9 AM. I’ll add a Read More link when the convention starts, so click that, or else be content with reading this introduction over and over.
Yes, The Uptake has a live stream. This is what I’m watching.
I’m starting to wonder if politics really does have rules, or merely guidelines where exceptions are rare, very rare … but not non-existent. One of the rules, or rarely to be departed from guidelines, is never argue from inside the other side’s frames. Avoid using their preferred words and phrases, because they chose those for how they evoke preferred framing in the listener.
Thus the caution about saying the phrase, “tax simplification”. Republicans like to use that. Frank Luntz advised using it to sell tax cuts when he wrote his messaging memo for Republican candidates in 2006, which Democratic persons managed to get a hold of, scan, and put into a PDF they called, “The Frank Luntz Rethug Playbook, Unauthorized Edition, How to Scare the American Public into Voting Republican *” Here’s one place to get a copy. Republican candidates commonly promise to simplify the tax code (Jason Lewis, the GOP endorsee in MN-02 for example), which of course means they’re going to make it easier for most of us to file our personal income taxes. Ha! Just kidding! They mean of course removing those pesky bits about rich people pay taxes too. Luntz was pretty blunt about how tax cuts at the top really don’t sell well, even though, at least in pre-Trump times before hating women and minorities became the organizing principle, cutting taxes at the top was more or less the Republican Party’s whole reason for existing.
That might not sell well, but tax simplification, everybody likes that! Whatever they think it means, and to be sure, the tax code is big and scary. Only a small part applies to any one of us, but which part? But if we could simplify the tax code, say make it ten percent smaller, then instead of a big intimidating tax code, we would have … a slightly smaller big intimidating tax code.
See if what jumped out to me jumps out to you too.
Mossack Fonseca is a leading global player in the incorporation of offshore companies across the globe. It was the subject of the largest-ever financial breach, and 11.5 million of its documents are the subject of a collaborative analysis by McClatchy and about 350 journalists under the umbrella of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. McClatchy was the only U.S. newspaper company involved.
You caught what I did if this bit was bolded in your mind as you read it, “McClatchy was the only U.S. newspaper company involved.”
This is unfortunately not one of those instances where the title is a question because the writer is going to answer it. I don’t know why other major US media outlets didn’t join in. In an interview with On The Media, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists director, Gerard Ryle, said the NY Times chose not to join. He speculated that US media still have a go-it-alone approach, which Ryle criticized on the grounds that the modern media economy makes it difficult for individual outlets to have adequate resources. He didn’t name other specific US media outlets and it’s likely unfair to pick on just the NY Times, but what about the other major dailies? What about the broadcast networks, and the cable news channels. Well, Fox News has the excuse that they don’t do news, but what about CNN and MSNBC? What, too many airplane crashes and terrorism scares to cover? What about the big news magazines? OK, be fair, maybe they invited only newspapers, but the big dailies for sure muffed it.
I’m not saying major US media didn’t cover the story after the ICIJ broke it, but it seems odd they all but McClatchy passed on the chance to break one of the biggest stories of the year. In fact, with so many powerful people from so many countries hiding from their respective tax collectors, the Mossack Fonseca could be providing new scandals for a long time. That’s just how much material investigative journalists are still trying to sort through. Everything that has come out so far — that’s with the story just getting started.
It’s a shame these financial scandals are so hard to follow. Sex scandals are so much easier to understand, no wonder they get so much more coverage, but they are’t nearly so important. Go on, explain just what the big financial corporations did to crash the economy in 2008. Now explain why Tara Mack and Tim Kelly suddenly decided to spend more time with family. Which was easier?*
Sure, there’s the obvious. Republicans hate Obama, oppose everything he does as SOP, and would oppose any nomination he might make for the US Supreme Court even under different circumstances. They would likely oppose any nomination made by a Democratic president, though given the disrespect they’ve shown this president, they probably feel the awful irony that the most blatant racist to sit on the court in recent decades will be replaced by someone chosen by the first black president.
But that’s not all.
Think back a few decades. Republicans held the presidency, and made all the supreme court nominations, for 20 of 24 years from Richard Nixon’s inauguration until Bill Clinton’s. The other four years were Jimmy Carter’s term, when he got zero picks. Zero. Presidents aren’t guaranteed any picks. Consequently, when Clinton started his first term, the court was 8-1 Republican. It may have been only 6-3 conservatives to moderates/liberals, but the point is this: the conservative lean of the supreme court is not recent. Going back to roughly the early 1980’s, for over 30 years, the court has been conservative. It didn’t start with George Bush Jr.; it couldn’t have, considering that the most infamous of the court’s 5-4 conservative decisions, Bush v. Gore, was a necessary precondition of Bush being placed in the presidency.
In other words, for all or most of the adult lives of those now living, and for the entire lives of anyone under age 35, the supreme court has been conservative, and been an eroding force for civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, and restraints on corporate power. Liberals haven’t always lost, but winning has always been against the odds, hoping a conservative or two could see the light on one particular case. Conservatives have been aware of this, putting far more attention on judicial appointments than liberals in general. There is no liberal equivalent of the Federalist Society frmo which John Roberts came.
So the death of Antonin Scalia means not merely that the favorite justice of the right has died, not merely that he’ll be replaced by a Democrat, and not merely that he’ll be replaced by THAT Democrat; it means the first liberal supreme court most of us have ever seen.
If the importance of that still doesn’t sink in, imagine no Bush v. Gore, and all that has flowed from that horrific decision; or at least, had Bush gone to the court as he did, he wouldn’t have been able to count on a partisan decision. Who knows, maybe a liberal court would have made a radical decision like telling Florida to actually count the ballots. Imagine no Citizens United or any decisions blowing apart our campaign finance laws. Imagine no Medicaid gap being written in the ACA. Imagine no Heller decision making law out of fringe doctrines of the gun obsessives. This is the court that is on the verge of flipping thanks to President Obama getting to select Scalia’s replacement.
When state DFL chair Ken Martin endorsed a “hybrid” primary, that made me happy because I’ve been wanting that ever since I helped with sign-in at my precinct’s caucus in 2008. I had no training or experience in running an election, and we made up procedures as we went because there was nothing else we could do. It was one of those deep blue urban precincts with the massive turnout, but the problems we ran into were pretty much the same as everywhere. Clearly, running a primary on a precinct caucus infrastructure was a lousy idea, and surely we would never try that again. We did try it again, as did several other states.
We had the same problems as 2008, and so did the other states that tried running a binding presidential ballot at a caucus: massive lines, harried volunteers with little if any training or experience, improvised procedures, and angry voters who had no idea what a “precinct caucus” does and left frustrated at the most screwed up polling places they’d ever seen. Except these aren’t polling places. People think there are staff running elections, but it’s all-volunteer, from the conveners and the people they recruit to help right through to the local party chairs.
The problem is essentially that the binding ballot brings out masses of people, with my seante district getting several times normal caucus turnout, so we’re taking the people who would vote over the whole day of a primary and trying to shove them through more or less all at once. Whereas election judges have time to set up before opening, we had lines of people even before the facilities were unlocked. Many conveners had literally no time to set up, and then they had to run a caucus simultaneously with running a polling place. This is literally the worst way to hold an election; thus my support — even before trying to make the unworkable work in my role as a local chair — for moving the presidential ballot to a separate primary. Let the primary determine the allocation of the state’s national delegates, while the caucuses do everything else. I wrote about what “everything else” means in my pre-caucus post urging attendees to stay and participate, but it’s no accident that the things I said caucuses work well for did not include binding ballots. What did concern me was that the many people coming to their first precinct caucus would leave alienated by a bad experience, and that volunteers would feel burned out and not come back. Those are the same people who knock on doors, make phone calls, and come early to run events. Given how much of a chair’s job is asking people to volunteer for something, losing part of the volunteer pool is scary.
Frankly, the presidential ballot is a mess even if everything goes perfectly, and it never does with caucuses, a point I really want to hammer home with anyone who still thinks we did things the right way. There are always conveners who are late because of a personal emergency, facilities that don’t unlock their doors on time and/or forget to tell the staff, volunteers that forget to show up, “help” from people who have no idea what’s going on but think sure they do, organizations that put out misinformation which causes problems for local parties, and I can tell you that in my district, all those things happened. That’s expected, and we cope with normal turnout and no primary to run. With several times normal turnout and a primary to run, good luck.
That makes it good news that a member of the majority party in each house of the legislature has offered a bill to have a presidential primary, and that the state chair has endorsed moving the presidential ballot to a primary. The MNGOP chair hasn’t said no, and the Gov. Mark Dayton is supportive. So why do I say the primary is not a done deal yet?