Here’s Delegate Mike Pushkin, the only Jewish member of the House of Delegates, explaining the difference between an inconvenience and persecution, and why he voted against the RFRA bigotry bill:
Wait for the mic drop moment at the end.
by John Cole| 70 Comments
This post is in: Gay Rights are Human Rights, Proud to Be A Democrat
Here’s Delegate Mike Pushkin, the only Jewish member of the House of Delegates, explaining the difference between an inconvenience and persecution, and why he voted against the RFRA bigotry bill:
Wait for the mic drop moment at the end.
This post is in: Election 2016, Open Threads, Proud to Be A Democrat
“Whatever we deserve, that’s what we’re going to get” — Ben Carson on the next president, on Fox just now
— Benjamin Armbruster (@benjaminja) February 9, 2016
Terrifying, but quite possibly accurate. https://t.co/yPbos4DKkT
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 9, 2016
Apart from all that, what’s on the agenda for the day?
It'll be amazing if this election comes down to old white guy from Queens vs old white guy from Brooklyn, both advocating 1930s-era policies
— David Roth Singerman (@singsingsolo) February 10, 2016
Not sure how anyone can listen to Trump & Sanders state their policies and think their voters could support each other.
— Tony Fratto (@TonyFratto) February 10, 2016
Most voters don't have opinions about policies. They have feelings about issues. https://t.co/jPiVciTela
— Josh Barro (@jbarro) February 10, 2016
@TonyFratto Wrong. Some want Sander/Trump for policy but would take the other just to burn down the establishment.
— Robert Wall (@robert_wall) February 10, 2016
Probably a banal point, but I'm struck by how many young Bernie organizers I've met today got activated by the Occupy movement.
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) February 9, 2016
Friend in Africa regarding the American election: "Doesn't it feel like the only way this ends is in a coup?"
— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) February 9, 2016
So who’s going to win the Trump-Sanders election?
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 9, 2016
Bloomberg https://t.co/xIxbe9ikzl
— Josh Barro (@jbarro) February 9, 2016
Important:
Delegate counts
Iowa
Clinton 27 Sanders 21#NHPrimary
Clinton 13 Sanders 13— Timothy McBride (@mcbridetd) February 10, 2016
I really want Massachusetts to build a wall and make New Hampshire pay for it.
— Daniel Drezner (@dandrezner) February 10, 2016
Wednesday Morning Open Thread: Hangover Hump DayPost + Comments (298)
by Betty Cracker| 253 Comments
This post is in: Bernie Sanders 2016, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton 2016, Politics, Proud to Be A Democrat
Has any would-be successor embraced a sitting president’s policies and legacy as closely as Hillary Clinton has? If so, I can’t recall it. The Republicans’ quadrennial tussle over Reagan’s shabby mantle doesn’t count because Reagan is a) dead, and b) stopped being president nearly 30 years ago.
It’s smart politics for Clinton to glom onto President Obama because he is a beloved and respected figure among Democrats, and Clinton is trying to win the Democratic primary. (It also makes sense because she was a key figure in the administration.) But notwithstanding the tweeted observations of folks like Propane Jane (as excerpted in Anne Laurie’s long reads thread the other day), I don’t think the winning equation in the general election is as simple as “embrace PBO -> collect party nomination -> become president.”
If PBO could run for a third term, I think he’d win. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt the wholesale transferability of the Obama coalition. Right now, each Democratic candidate seems to have coopted only parts of it, with Sanders collecting an impressive portion of the youngs and Clinton so far banking the lion’s share of the minority vote and olds. But if she prevails in the primary, Clinton will face the Obama third-term dilemma in the general.
Elections, like sequels to successful film franchises, can’t be all about the past. In the 2016 election, particularly the primary, some fan service is warranted because the departing president has been as successful and consequential as any in (most of) our lifetimes. But if “Democrats 2016: The Force Awakens” is to be a hit in its own right, the protagonist is going to need her own storyline, especially in the general.
So what is Clinton’s storyline, aside from the obvious historical nature of her candidacy? Experience and pragmatism are the watchwords so far. Booman believes Clinton is blowing it by “coming across as the ‘No, We Can’t’ candidate.” He gives her credit for not overpromising but says her realism has “pushed [her] into being a naysayer who can’t speak to the aspirations of the base.”
Maybe. But I think she’s playing the long game, banking on PBO’s sky-high popularity with Democrats, her own policy chops and squeamishness about the “S” word to deliver the nomination, after which she hopes to pivot to the general, where even her talk about a cautious expansion of the ACA, etc., will be perceived as wild-eyed profligacy by about 60 million voters, the House majority and whichever hairball the GOP horks up as her opponent. No more trouble with “No, We Can’t” in that environment.
Is it a good gamble? Fuckifino. What do you think?
This post is in: Election 2016, Military, Open Threads, Proud to Be A Democrat, World's Best Healthcare (If You Can Afford It), Daydream Believers
Major concession from GOP, Koch-funded vets group: "We very clearly state that we oppose . . . privatizing the VA." https://t.co/Zv77KW8q0t
— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) February 5, 2016
This seems significant, if only for the record books:
Officials at Concerned Veterans of America are lashing back at the two Democratic presidential frontrunners a day after both panned the group’s proposals in a national debate…
CVA has advocated restructuring the Veterans Health Administration as an independent entity and giving veterans more access to private care options with federal dollars, both radical shifts from the current system. But they reject the accusation that the plans amount to “privatization” of the department…
CVA officials have repeatedly declined to discuss funding sources and trustee information for the group, but numerous news reports have linked the group to the Koch brothers network of conservative activist organizations.
Both Sanders and Clinton — along with numerous mainstream veterans groups — have promised to fight privatization of VA services. CVA officials have said privatization and offering more health care choices are distinctly different things.
In a statement Friday afternoon, Democratic National Committee officials supported Sanders and Clinton.
“The jig is up,” said Eric Walker, spokesman for the DNC. “Vets shouldn’t be fooled by a right-wing front group whose main objective is not helping veterans, but electing Republicans like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and others who support privatizing the VA.”
In recent months, CVA officials have held a series of town halls to discuss their reform proposals, which have sometimes doubled as campaign events for Republican presidential hopefuls…
Am I over-optimistic?
If @ConcernedVets NO longer supports VA Privatization they have abandoned every #GOP leader that does #Election2016 https://t.co/lgyndvS3Tr
— Jon Soltz (@jonsoltz) February 5, 2016
Open Thread: Who Says Debates Don’t Get Results?Post + Comments (77)
This post is in: Election 2016, Open Threads, Proud to Be A Democrat
The thing you would miss watching the Twitter fights is that most Democrats like both Clinton and Sanders.
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 2, 2016
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are more progressive than almost anyone who's ever run for POTUS. This is a small and distracting debate
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) February 4, 2016
Chris Matthews commending moderators for speaking so little during debate. #noselfawareness
— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) February 5, 2016
Local news, FWIW, predicting a potentially heavy snowfall next Tuesday, the day of the NH primary.
So… what did I miss, this evening, while (over) focusing on the debate?
This post is in: Bernie Sanders 2016, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton 2016, Open Threads, Proud to Be A Democrat
The first presidential debate spin room I've been in with an open fire. Cosy. pic.twitter.com/lb2SWFDGXu
— Dan Roberts (@RobertsDan) February 5, 2016
From the MSNBC website:
The debate, set for the University of New Hampshire in Durham, begins at 9 p.m. ET. It will be moderated by NBC News’ Chuck Todd and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
Here is what you need to know about how to watch and be a part of the experience:
The debate will air live on MSNBC, beginning at 9 p.m. ET
You can also watch the live stream of the debate online at NBCNews.com and MSNBC.com. And if looking for real-time reactions and analysis, you’ll find it at all decision2016.nbcnews.com.
The Guardian‘s invaluable liveblog is here.
***********
ETA: From the Guardian liveblog:
Richard Wolffe
Here’s the value of debate prep: Sanders delivered some well-worn lines attacking Wall Street and campaign contributions from the financial industry.But Clinton landed this piece of opposition research: Sanders voted twice to deregulate derivatives, which had a far more direct impact on the financial collapse of 2008 than Glass-Steagall. Within seconds, Clinton’s press team had emailed the research to the press corps.
Strangely Sanders let the attack pass him by, and sadly the moderators jumped to a highly-paid commercial break – a wonderful demonstration of the democracy-corrupting effects of big corporation dollars.The hope that they would return to this line of questioning after the ads was, unfortunately, dashed.
***********
C-Todd (of course) raised The Serious Question about Clinton’s emails. And she (IMO) hit it out of the park —
Hillary Clinton, asked if she’s confident that nothing will come of the security review of her use of private emails as secretary of state:
“I am one-hundred percent confidence. This is a security review that was requested, it is being carried it, it will be resolved.”
… aaand then she pivoted to the actual point: There’s a plethora of retroactive classification going on (she didn’t say ‘institutional CYA’ but that’s where my mind went), it’s a real problem, and it needs to be addressed in a serious way, not used as a cheap partisan talking point.
Wrap-up: Final question: If you agree on so much, would you choose your opponent to be your VP candidate?
Hillary says “Let’s not be presumptuous, get ahead of ourselves”, but Sanders “would be the first person she called”.
Sanders agrees with her, pivots to add “She’s a hundred times” more suited for the Oval Office than any one of the Republican candidates. Good for both of them!
Closing statements: Hillary says this should be “both a heart and a head” election; she understands how so many people can be frustrated with the current status, but she’s the one with the experience and the skills to get actual legislative changes. Sanders said that we need “real” change in Washington. Reams of applause for both…
MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate Open ThreadPost + Comments (363)
This post is in: Election 2016, Excellent Links, Post-racial America, Proud to Be A Democrat
Longterm commentor The Conster linked to Propane Jane’s post last night, and I found it really interesting. Yes, the string-of-tweets format can be… visually intrusive… for some of us, but in the Storify format, all you have to do is read from the top to the bottom. These are extracts:
Matter of fact, anyone who thinks they can win the 2016 Democratic primary without "hugging" Obama is doing it all the way wrong.
— Propane Jane (@docrocktex26) January 25, 2016
It's not rocket science, folks. Stop trying to build a new coalition when you already have one that works and wins the White House.
— Propane Jane (@docrocktex26) January 25, 2016
The conservatives who love Trump weren't hooked by his faux economic populism. They came for the bigotry and oppression like they always do.
— Propane Jane (@docrocktex26) January 26, 2016
They couldn't care less about the big banks because they're already convinced that Blacks, Muslims, and Mexicans are their worst enemies.
— Propane Jane (@docrocktex26) January 26, 2016
That's why they'll show up election after election to vote against socialism and anything else that might help folk they hate. Full stop.
— Propane Jane (@docrocktex26) January 26, 2016
Let me reassure you it's ok to call the GOP brand of institutionalized racism what it is on its face. Trump proves they aren't hiding it.
— Propane Jane (@docrocktex26) January 27, 2016
(Perceptually) Long Read: “When Racism Trumps Socialism”Post + Comments (272)