After I finished watching Elizabeth Warren’s speech a few days ago, it struck me, that the Republicans will be headed to a period of ‘their worst nightmare’ of who will be in charge. Currently the Republicans have Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate, Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, and with a conservative balance, the Supreme Court has Chief Justice Roberts issuing mostly Republican-pleasing decisions from the bench. The only branch of government not in Republican or conservative hands today, is the White House. Even there, President Obama did start his administration attempting a post-partisan and bipartisan government. In his first years, he really tried to govern on a bipartisan basis, to the dismay of his own party, then in control of both the Senate and the House, but to total obstruction by the Republicans. What I can foresee now, is an emegence of a ‘gang’ of politicians that the right wing will hate like nothing they’ve hated before. It could be a bunch of people that might be called the Hateful Eight. Lets play some speculation about Hillary Clinton’s first cabinet and various other postings, and other changes in government that will be coming after November.
OBAMA AND FEARSOME FOUR
In the past eight years, the right-wing media has been vilifying President Obama with everything from questioning his birth (led by Donald Trump) and bringing about the widely-held myth among core Republican voters, that Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim (both obviously untrue). His policies have been attacked mercilessly, Obamacare was supposed to have death panels (it doesn’t) and to destroy the US economy (it didn’t; the US economy has had its longest period of economic growth and of job growth in US history). They even questioned his motives, suggesting Obama will take away guns (he has done no such thing) or he was going to invade Texas (which didn’t happen). Obama governed as a moderate Democrat, he hasn’t damaged the United States in any way, but the perception of the USA abroad, which was at its lowest measure ever measured under Bush-Cheney, has now recovered to being highly admired again. In an objective measurement, while he has by no means been a perfect President, Obama has been one of the better ones, one of the more achieving Presidents, and his achievements have not featured any major over-reach by government, nor any scandals. Quite a remarkable Presidency in all. Yet the right-wing media have turned Obama into the most hated politician to them, of the past 8 years. That was turning a teddy bear into a monster. What happens when a REAL bear walks into the bedroom?
Its normal for the party not in the White House to be against the sitting President. This by long-standing tradition was limited to domestic policy, it was very rare that the Senate and House would make public any grievances they had with the White House on foreign policy. But in domestic policy, the Republicans were against Jimmy Carter; the Democrats against Ronald Reagan and Daddy Bush; the Republicans against Bill Clinton; and the Democrats against W Bush. One can detect an increasing intensity in that, where the attacks from the left on the Bush-Cheney administration, and attempts to block them, were at perhaps historical highs, and that in turn perhaps caused the ‘reaction’ and revenge from the Republicans, when President Obama came into office, to do that unprecedented move - to systematically block everything he did. This had never been public policy by the party in opposition. Where Obama wanted to, and truly tried to govern as a post-partisan, bipartisan President reaching across the aisle on everything (in his early years) even when his own party held briefly a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate - the Republicans refused to play ball with Obama and instead vilified him and blocked him at ever stage.
The current blockage of the Supreme Court nominee Garland is the longest its ever been for a Supreme Court Justice, but thats nothing compared to the lower court Judges than the Republicans have been blocking. They are totally against Obama at every stage. After the 2012 re-election of Obama, he finally got the message that the Republicans would never be post-partisan with him, and he has then pursued a more liberal agenda, but by then he had lost both the House and the Senate. Now he was pretty much powerless and has been resorting to some Executive Orders to get some of his policies in place. Even here, Obama has issued the least of Vetoes and Executive Orders of any sitting President in recent years, but the right-wing media accuses Obama of using somehow ‘dictatorial powers’ to subvert the will of the people.
Its fair to say, the relationship between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House is bad. Certainly yes. This is not, however, caused by hostility initiated by the White House, it is the result of 8 years of deliberate, systematic and total obstruction by the Republicans. They broke it, but they accuse Obama of being the villain.
Most fair-minded moderate and Independent voters see this as a fact. Most Republican and right-wing voters believe that the Republicans are not at fault (or that there is roughly as much fault on both sides) and that this is Obama’s fault. So they have turned Obama into a pretend-monster. Which he wasn’t. But if we go back one year, just as the primary process was starting with its first announcements and first debates - at that time the politician most hated by Republicans was President Obama (now that is Hillary Clinton). If we go back to the early years of the Obama administration, say year 2010, the most hated politicians by right wing voters were Obama, Nancy Pelosi (then House Speaker) and Harry Reid (then leader of the Senate when it was controlled by Democrats). And of Obama’s White House, the number 2 guy hated almost as much as Obama himself, was the Attorney General, Eric Holder, the first black man to hold that office of the highest-ranking attorney in the nation. Note that Vice President Joe Biden wasn’t seen that intimidating, and while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she was actually admired by many Republicans in public (partly as they wanted to undermine the respect of Obama). These four, a kind of Fearsome Four, were the boogeymen and women for Republicans: Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Holder. They were portrayed as Evil Incarnate.
TOP TROICA OF THE HATEFUL EIGHT
Now lets look past November. Most pundits and analysts now say Hillary is favored (some say strongly favored) to win in November. Most pundits and analysts say the Senate is likely to flip to Democrats; some even are starting to admit, the House may flip if Hillary has a big landslide victory. So lets update that list for Republicans and Conservatives, for say summer of 2017. Who will be the most hated Democrats for them. It will be more than four people because we will have yet another tilt in the balance. Because Justice Scalia died in office, the Supreme Court balance will shift from conservative to liberal balance. If the Republicans played this smartly, they would approve Obama’s nominee, a moderate and very highly rated, qualified judge, Garland. But they are continuing obstinately on their path of total obstruction of Obama. So Garland is not being confirmed. This means that while in reality, the Supreme Court conservative edge was lost early in 2016, the real shift in its balance to liberal-leaning will not happen until Hillary is in office (with a Democratic majority in the Senate to confirm her nominees). So lets start with the hatred. Who will be the Hateful Eight?
Who will be the single person the Republicans hate the most in 2017? Trick question, it won’t be a Democrat. No, while they yes of course will hate Hillary Clinton with a deep passion, they will hate one person more. The most reviled person in America in 2017 will be Donald Trump of course, because it was Trump who destroyed all chances Republicans had to win anything. He will lead the party to an epic catastrophy losing by 20 points and causing the Senate and House to flip to Democratic control. The Democrats already hate Trump now, before the general election season has even started. The Independents will grow to hate Trump with unprecedented passion during the general election when so many conservatives and Republicans, Trump’s ‘own side’ will say he is an unelectable incompetent arrogant racist. And Republicans themselves, will hold out hope, until after election day in November when they too will join in the grand coalition of Trump-haters. There will be about 20% or 25% of Americans who voted for Trump who still think he actually had good ideas and they will soon learn to shut their mouths and never talk of Trump again, similar to how Sarah Palin’s fans soon learned not to admit that in public. The closet Trump supporters (who often also are, by coincidence, Sarah Palin fans).
So yeah, sorry, its a Saturday. I tricked you. Yeah, the most reviled person in US politics will from mid November of this year, become Donald Trump, hated on all sides of the political spectrum and he will be exiled from politics more than Walter Mondale who only lost by 18 points to Reagan in 1984, and has been vanished from politics since (he is the former Vice President to Jimmy Carter) who still lives to this day. We will be rid of Trump don’t worry. But yes, lets talk of the living DEMOCRATS that will be hated, in the summer of 2017.
First off, at the top of the Hateful Eight will be of course Hillary Clinton, the leader of the gang. No surprise there, she is already today the most hated Democrat. Hillary has not silly misconceptions about any post-partisan world. She is a deep partisan, she will govern with an iron grip, she will bring back the Senate and House majorities, and she will inact a populist agenda, which the Republicans will hate. Just by being her, she is elevated to top hated Democrat by the conservatives.
A familiar name rises to her side. No, not hubby Bill. Bill Clinton is best served by doing what is very hard, but where long-term relationships matter the most. He will be the Ambassador At Large; Bill will be the Ambassador Without Portfolio; he will be like a second ‘foreign minister’ for the USA, alongside the Secretary of State. Often the First Lady of a male President in the past has done ceremonial foreign affairs duties but Bill Clinton will be the ‘actual’ Secretary of State, closer to Hillary than the ‘real’ Secretary fo State, whoever that might be. I would guess Hillary will appoint some general to that post. So while Bill Clinton will definitely as First Gentleman have a larger role in US Government than any First Lady ever has, it will not be in domestic policy, he will be dispatched abroad, to work on all the international policy quagmires that the US is involved in. Note that his presence will frustrate the ‘real’ Secretary of State. But for right wing media and Republicans, Bill Clinton will be forgotten. The public enemy number 2 will be a familiar ghost of nightmares past: Nancy Pelosi!
Yes, Nancy. The hated Speaker of the House will be back. Whatever Hillary enacts as law - she won’t need Executive Orders when she has both the Senate and the House - that will always come from legislation in Congress and as she’s the far more senior, ranking Democrat in Congress ahead of Chuck Schumer who just now starts his role leading the Senate, and as Nancy very much loves the spotlight, she will be the one speaking most on camera about any legislation. Schumer will be playing second fiddle to Pelosi. So number 2 on our Hateful Eight will be Nancy Pelosi. But let me say this. Where the Republicans thought they knew Pelosi (of how bad she can be - to their causes) this will be worse. In the last years of Bush-Cheney Pelosi was the nemesis in Congress. Then in came Obama with his silly post-partisan ideas, so Pelosi could not enact a clearly liberal Democratic agenda. And she lost her gavel only 2 years into Obama’s first term. She has been plotting her return and now, finally with a firebrand liberal (on domestic issues) in the White House, the most liberal of the past recent Democratic Presidents at least going back to Lyndon B Johnson, Pelosi finally has her ally in Hillary that she always wanted. Pelosi will run through a raise in the national minimum wage, a law for the first time mandating paid maternity leave, election reforms, environmental controls, reasonable limits to gun purchases, and on and on and on. The ‘new Pelosi’ is a far more dangerous older Tiger than the one the Republicans hated back in 2010.
Third, obviously, among the Hateful Eight is Chuck Schumer, Senator from New York who will become the leader of the Senate when the Democrats regain control of that chamber. Over time Schumer will become emboldened to use more of his power, but initially he still will be learning the ropes and moving cautiously. The Senate was always the more ‘mature’ chamber with less heated rhetoric and more friendships across the aisle. Schumer’s position among the Hateful Eight will be more symbolic and one out of his mere presence in press events than actual actions and deeds. Yet he will be ramming through a ton of hated legislation and preciding over all those nominations approved in the Senate by often pure partisan votes, of judges, ambassadors, cabinet members and various government officials. Schumer will be earning his post as one of the Hateful Eight simply for doing his job. Thats our top trio of hated Democrats, the Top Troica. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Now what of the supporting cast of the Hateful Eight.
WHERE WARREN?
If you saw the speech by Senator Elizabeth Warren two days ago, you saw something special. If you enjoy truly great speeches by political leaders, like Obama’s classic keynote to the Democratic Convention, of ‘No Red America, No Blue America’ or you enjoyed Reagan’s ‘Shining City on a Hill’ or say Churchills ‘Never Surrender’ speech. A political speech of epic, lasting relevance, go watch Elizabeth Warren’s speech. It was that good. Its the best speech she’s given. Its the best political speech of this year so far, definitely. Its one of the best speeches given by anyone. It will be the speech that is repeated and revisited. It will be the one, that will be referenced when the Elizabeth Warren 2024 Presidential run begins, and all will point to this speech. This speech is what turned a Democratic and liberal darling into a national force. Its only 30 minutes in length but if you enjoy a speech that is emotional and factual, that is funny and serious, that is deep and uplifting, that is motivational and persuasive, go watch Elizabeth Warren’s speech on.. (I don’t want to say what its about, you may enjoy it more if you don’t know even what its about, just please trust me, go watch it).
Elizabeth Warren will run for President after Hillary’s two terms, that is certain. Can she beat the sitting Vice President Julian Castro, that remains to be seen. So yes first off. What becomes of Elizabeth Warren. She’d love to be Hillary’s VP. She’s said so. Hillary has said she won’t rule out a two-woman ticket. Warren would be a great attack dog on Trump except Hillary doesn’t need another attack dog, its not that she’s intimidated or timid of Trump. Trump is a perfect vehicle for Hillary to establish her reputation as the Iron Lady of America (similar to how Margaret Thatcher was the Iron Lady of Britain or how Golda Meir was the Iron Lady of Israel). Elizabeth Warren would be another woman - women will already vote for Hillary over Trump. Warren is from Massachussetts, one of the most Democratic states, so there is no regional gain out of putting her on the ticket. No, I do like Warren but Hillary will pick Julian Castro as her VP, because he is a young Hispanic, will bring in tons of enthusiastic Hispanic voters to the Democratic ticket up and down the ballot, and be useful in battleground states of the South with high Hispanic voter numbers like Nevada, Florida, Colorado and New Mexico. Even more so now because of Trump’s hostile rhetoric about Hispanics and Mexicans. Then Castro will help fight for two states Hillary wants to flip from red to purple - Arizona and Texas. Castro even has an identical twin brother Joaquin who is a Congressman from Texas. Yes, Hillary will pick Julian Castro the former Mayor of San Antonio Texas and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as her Vice President. Finally, remember what Hillary promised, her White House will look like America. She will have roughly half of her Cabinet women (its never happened in the US before) and have an appropriate racial mix too. So here we have the first-ever Hispanic as Vice President. Yes it fits perfectly a Hillary Clinton master-plan.
Lets set aside the prestige of the position of Vice President. As a government official, the VP is pretty much just a place-holder. In case the President dies, then yes, he is important (Johnson was last VP to become President when John F Kennedy was shot five decades ago). But as a member of the Cabinet and as a politician, the VP is utterly meaningless, as the TV show Veep has reminded us now for several seasons. What has Joe Biden done in his 8 years? Nothing. The Republicans haven’t even bothered to bitch about Biden and the only attacks about him are of his numerous gaffes in what he says. He has done nothing. Because most VPs do nothing (excepting puppet-master Dick Cheney who was the power behind inept President W Bush, but thats another story). If you are a bleeding-heart liberal, and you love Elizabeth Warren and you hoped she would have run against Hillary, where do YOU want her now. She can’t become President. If not President, do you really want her to be as useless as Joe Biden? Really? Of course not. Yes, it would be another plumb prestige job to be Secretary of State but seriously - you want her to waste all that talent in having photo ops with the Prime Minister of France and the King of Sweden? Really? No you don’t. You want Warren the liberal lion to roar. You want her to ROAR.
The Democrats rammed through, with lukewarm Republican support, Dodd-Frank, to limit excesses of Wall Street and bring about regulations about banking and the financial sector. Dodd-Frank is the ‘answer’ to the crisis that collapsed the world economy into its deepest recession of the past 80 years. But Dodd-Frank is toothless because the Republicans have systematically obstructed it and gutted it at every level. Who was the most vocal Democrat to push for banking rules and regulations and all the parts of Dodd-Frank? Its Senator Elizabeth Warren. If Hillary is the one Democrat the Republicans most hate, Elizabeth Warren is the one Democrat the Republicans most FEAR.
Then where is the biggest power base of Republicans and conservatives? Its not the religious right. Its not the gun lobby. Its the billionaires. Its the Bush clan’s pals and its Mitt Romney’s friends. I mean the real human beings, not that Corporations are People My Friend. The fat cats of Wall Street, the Billionaires who are hedge fund managers and who have seen their wealth balloon incredibly from Reagan’s voodoo economics, ie trickle-down economics up to the last tax cuts by Bush-Cheney, that were again extended under Obama. The real power of Republicans are the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and various Billionaires (like Donald Trump too). Who do they fear the most? Elizabeth Warren. Who are polluting and corrupting the political system the most? Via Citizens United, it is that billionaire class headed by the Koch Brothers. And yes, their public enemy number 1 is not Hillary Clinton. They are ok with the Clintons. The person they truly fear is Elizabeth Warren.
If you are a bleeding-heart liberal, and cannot have Elizabeth Warren as President, and think of where can she do the best job, of truly fulfilling her utmost capability and ‘fight the good fight’ it is to fight against the powerful forces of money from Wall Street. And there is one person who has that power. The government’s top dog regulating and controlling the financial side of the nation. Its the job of Treasury Secretary. The fifth person in succession to the Presidency, a permanent member to the National Security council, and one of the four most powerful Cabinet posts. It has always been held by a man up to now. But Elizabeth Warren is totally competent to run that job. And she’d do it darned well.
Now consider the symbolic side of it. She’d be the first-ever woman to hold the job of Treasury Secretary (nice move by first-ever woman President Hillary Clinton). Yes, its a woman onto Hillary’s Cabinet, but not just a woman - she is part Native American. It would be a nice addition to the ‘rainbow’ aspect of Hillary Clinton’s White House of being more like America. To have a woman who is part Native American as one of her senior cabinet members. But consider this. Her SIGNATURE would be on US banknotes ie the dollar bills in our pockets. Yes, take a look, every dollar bill of any denomination has the signature of the current, sitting Secretary of the Treasury. That in itself is historic, except, remember.. that new Tubman 20 dollar bill will be coming shortly, with a woman on the banknote. That banknote will come into circulation when Hillary is President. If she makes Warren her Secretary of the Treasury, then this highly-collected first-woman 20 dollar bill - will also have, yes, the signature of the first-ever woman Secretary of the Treasury. Nice symbolism on the rise of women into power.
Usually the job of most Cabinet ministers is hidden from view. They are not seen much unless something goes catastrphically wrong within their area of responsibity. But imagine Elizabeth Warren as Treasury Secretary. The Democrats WANTED Dodd-Frank to have teeth. The wrote it into the legislation. The Republicans have been able to gut all that for several years. Warren has fought against that from the Senate. Hillary is not eager to go destroy Wall Street (many there are her friends and benefactors, as well as friends of Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation) but all Democrats want the ABUSES curtailed and reasonable controls and limits enacted, like those about predatory payday lenders, abusive credit card and bank fees, etc etc etc. Look at what John Oliver just did buying old medical debt in Texas and forgiving it. There are masses of abusive behavior in the financial sector today, not because Dodd-Frank isn’t in place, but because it has been gutted. Elizabeth Warren, just by doing what that law requires, with a Democratic-control House and Senate can bring about tremendous improvements in the financial sector, to cut down on the abusive behavior. She will love doing it, and she will be great at it. And she will instantly be elevated to near the top of the Hateful Eight.
Meanwhile, while most Cabinet posts are very well hidden from view, Elizabeth Warren will ensure her time at the Treasury will be one of exceptional visibility. They will agree on this, with Hillary. Elizabeth Warren will use her time as Secretary of the Treasury as her ‘platform’ to prepare for her run into the Presidential race in 2024. So she will be in the news often, on very populist and popular rulings and regulations that are for the people and against abuses. After she finally resigns from her post sometime during Hillary’s second term (to prepare for her run for President herself) Elizabeth Warren will have created the position of Secretary of Treasury as one of the most desired Cabinet postings, simply because of the publicity she will have gotten from that posting. Its a match made in heaven. She was born to run that office. And she will have a historic memento to outlast her life - her signature was on that banknote when the USA put a woman on the 20 dollar bill.
FEELING THE BERN
Where do we put uncle Bernie? Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He’s a Socialist. He knows now, his run that briefly raised his own hopes that he might win, was crushed in the end, and he will be deeply demoralized but he will be a trooper and campaign for Hillary and rally his troops to ‘his cause’ and of course against Trump and for Hillary. There will be some who try to argue Bernie should be on the ticket as Vice President (that will never happen, and most know it). He’d like a major Cabinet post like Secretary of State and he won’t get that either. But Hillary will find a place to at least offer Bernie, and it is a good job but not a ‘plum’ job. I do personally believe that Bernie is that much a man of principle, that when the job is offered, and he is disappointed, he will think it through, and he will in the end, accept it. Its the job of Labor Secretary. Where else can Bernie Sanders have more actual impact on the lives of American suffering lower-income workers, than serving Hillary Clinton’s Democratic White House, when the Senate and House both flip to Democrats, and then go serve as the Secretary of Labor.
But Bernie now is a rock star of politics with enormous grass-roots support, especially among the youth. It means, that when this obscure Cabinet post has something to report, Bernie WILL get into the news cycle. He has far more actual power than he would in the Senate, where after all, he is Not a Democrat. The Democrats will take a big swing into their favor, so they won’t ‘need’ to give Bernie some chairmanship job, just to ensure Bernie caucuses with the Democrats. He would be overshadowed in the new Democratic Senate. But if he now takes his cause to the Labor sector, he can have the Republicans, especially any nasty employers trying to union-bash etc, to feel the Bern. He would be, beyond any doubt, the most visible Labor Secretary that the USA has ever seen. And because of his rock star status in politics, he’ll remain visible for many years. And in the eternal battle of employers versus labor, Bernie can be on the side of the little guys, and against the moneyed rich guys. This would make Bernie a natural, albeit bit-player, among the Hateful Eight. For Hillary’s Cabinet yes its an old white guy, but .. he’s a Jew. Again a minority, even where Hillary appoints a man, a man representing a minority. Would fit Hillary’s overall plan of a diverse White House.
ATTORNEYS ANGELS
So then the attack dog of the White House. The lightning-rod that draws instantly the most hatred by the rival party. Attorney General. Eric Holder was almost as reviled as Barack Obama and now Loretta Lynch is equally under fire. Note Holder was the first black AG, and Lynch the second black but first black female AG. Its not a stretch to imagine Hillary asking Loretta to continue. This is a very important job for the President, the kind of personal attorney to send to attack on any mission of national injustice (and defend the President when the other side runs nasty politically-inspired attacks etc). It is one that often is very personal - Holder and Obama were close friends - and needs utter total trust between the two. I do not mean that Lynch doesn’t have this with Hillary, I just don’t know. Its MOST likely that Hillary has known for years who will be her AG and its someone relatively obscure, not in the public eye right now but someone VERY competent as a lawyer, who shares Hillary’s visions and values perfectly and has long served near or with the Clintons. But lets play a bit with this theme. Lets first dispose of Loretta Lynch.
The Attorney General is almost always a very competent lawyer. Almost always, when there is an opening in the Supreme Court, among the early gossip is a current or recent Attorney General, to be ‘promoted’ to the Bench of Supremes, while that actually only rarely happens. Still, already now Eric Holder has been mentioned - he has been asked, what if Garland is not confirmed and Hillary becomes President, if she asks, would Holder be willing to serve on SCOTUS. He has said almost unequivocably, no. I would love the ‘poetic justice’ of the years of Republican hatred of Holder, to then be stuck with Holder on a lifetime commission now on the Bench (and it was not a total absolute denial, he could even be willing to do it, and even be appointed, but probably not). Lets play with this Hateful Eight theory however. What of Loretta Lynch? Hillary no doubt likes her and admires her, and almost certainly, if Lynch was Obama’s first choice to replace Holder, she will not be Hillary’s first choice. So Hillary would like to get rid of her, but obviously, in a nice way. So lets take this Garland confirmation mess and again, lets take some poetic licence for our Hateful Eight.
As the Republican-controlled Senate has not affirmed Garland to the Supreme Court, at just before election day, point Obama just withdraws his name, saying that Hillary shall have the right to nominate whoever she wants (this all in reality has been coordinated with Hillary and Obama, of course). Garland has a private meeting in the White House attended by Hillary, where he is assured, she will be nominating him again, in her first term, but they need to teach the Republicans a lesson about this obstruction. And during the transition period, Hillary declares that her first nominee, instead of Obama’s choice of Garland to the Bench, will be Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. Not a white man, the first person Hillary appoints - is a black woman. Again this is that principle of her administration and appointments ‘looking like America’. (Secretly, they promise Garland, he will be the second nominee, expected to only wait some months into Hillary’s first term, and that he will sail through now with a Democratic Senate).
Loretta Lynch would be a far more ‘liberal’ justice than Garland. The Republicans would hate her for that and they would ALSO blame Mitch McConnell for being so stupid and short-sighted not to accept Obama’s Garland nomination. This helps sink even further Republicans’ own opinions of their party leaders in the Hillary election massacre aftermath - and help raise Obama’s increasing popularity - that yeah, compared to Loretta Lynch, gosh Garland would have been a far more moderate Justice, why didn’t the idiot Republican Senators take that offer when reasonable Obama made it in 2016. Now, lets get to the Hateful Eight. A Supreme Court Justice will almost never gain major fame or notoriety except the Chief Justice. Justice Antonin Scalia on the extreme right was an exception and liberals hated him. There is a rare counterpart on the current Bench, on the left, as all SCOTUS-watchers know. She is 80 year old Notorious RBG, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
Up to now, for her whole tenure on the Supreme Court, Notorious RBG has only had the power to write scalding rebukes in the minority (losing) views to major court cases. The balance of SCOTUS was conservative, so on issues that she most cared about, she mostly lost. Yes, she also is a brilliant attorney and has been able to win debates and many narrow cases, got an actual switch of the Court’s eventual ruling or if not then maybe toned down how conservative that ruling ended up being. But Notorious RBG has been forced to play second fiddle to Chief Justice Roberts. And she never really got to sing the lead vocals of their dischordiant tunes. What happens now? Regardless of whoever it is, that Hillary appoints to the Supreme Court, the balance will now shift to liberal-leaning. For 40 years the liberal Justices have been forced to eat the shit while the conservatives overruled them. Now they have their time to issue opposing views - as the majority view. She is still in her prime mentally (even as she has health issues otherwise, she is 80 years of age) and expect for several years, Ruth Bader Ginsburg to issue epic rulings on the most contentious Supreme Court decisions where it only goes 5-4 for the liberals. Where that vote by (in my scenario, Loretta Lynch but it could be any liberal Justice appointed by Hillary including Garland) is decided by the new, youngest judge - they DON’T get the attention. They get the least important cases to write their rulings on.
The most important cases go to the most senior Justices. And the right wing will hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words in fire and brimstone of unprecedented fury, after she was forced to live in the minority for all those decades. And the conservatives and Republicans will be astonished as to ‘where is Chief Justice Roberts’? He has been ‘pussy whipped’ by the new women on the Bench. He is a traitor. He will be hated on all sides. And his words won’t have any real relevance anymore, because suddenly it is only the minority view, the dissenting view, that he gets to author. The passion won’t be there. And the conservatives will blame Roberts anyway. What is the end result? It will seem like Notorious RBG has become the ‘de facto’ Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. She will be authoring the rulings of each of the most long-reaching most meaningful decisions of the court, that only now flipped 5-4 in favor of the liberal wing. So her words will be echoing in the ears of conservatives as the most evil poison coming out of the Supreme Court. A part of how it gets there is ‘the evil Loretta Lynch’ who flipped the balance. Another part is how ‘the evil Hillary Clinton’ appointed that liberal Loretta Lynch to the Bench. But most of all, not through her words or any public appearances, but simply through writing her epic rulings in the most important Supreme Court rulings of the first years of Hillary Clinton’s Presidency, Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg will earn her spot as one of the Hateful Eight. An 80 year old jewish woman and judge.
REMEMEBER BENGHAZI?
So we have six of the Hateful Eight. Hillary, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders; and now Ruth Ginsberg. What happend to the AG? The attack dog? Loretta Lynch was convenienly deposited to the Supreme Court. Who would Hillary appoint as the Attorney General? This is probably the biggest stretch in my story, but lets play along. Did you watch the full 12 hours of the Benghazi Hearings? The witch-hunt meant to tear down Hillary Clinton last year? She withstood all those attacks with a smile. But were you like me, and watched that old Black Congressman from Georgia, Elijah Cummings, with just awe and respect. To call Congressman Cummings ‘tenacious’ is unfair. If you conjugate Tenacious, it goes like this: Tenacious, More tenacious, Elijah Cummings. He is the the ultimate bulldog if there ever was. If he was the speech-writer for Winston Churchill’s ‘Never Surrender’ speech, Elijan would say - Mr Prime Minister, I think that speech has still too much surrender in it.
There is nobody on the planet more unyielding than this epic Democratic civil rights lion. He pops up every few years, when the Republicans have another moronic commission on something, and everything that he says sounds like chocolate, smooth, smart, logical, rational, AMERICAN, fair, honest, and just. If you were a Democrat President, and had to pick the Attorney General out of the sitting House, you’d pick Elijah Cummings. And if you’re a Republican in Washington DC, and had the chance to veto a choice for Attorney General, the first person you’d veto is a return of Eric Holder. Yes, he was that bad for them. Then you’d say, oh, Harry Reid. He’d be just as bad. Number three, the first person not retired or retiring, that would be Representative Elijah Cummings of the Great State of Georgia. Now, its almost certain Hillary has long since known who will be her AG and it will not be someone we generally recognize by name. Its someone from the secretive Clinton circles. But lets play Hateful Eight. If there was one person, who would still WANT the job has not retired or is not retiring, that the Republicans would MOST fear as Attorney General (and this includes Elizabeth Warren as the alternative) - that would be this old black gentleman / bulldog from Georgia. Now, whoever Hillary appoints as her Attorney General, that person will be highly visible and instantly hated by Republicans, but lets play. Lets say its the most feared House Member. Hillary could appoint yes, Elijah Cummings as Attorney General. It would also fit the pattern, an older man, but a black man. And we have seven out of our Hateful Eight. Lets go to the joker card.
WHO OUTSIDE OF POLITICS WOULD THEY MOST HATE
We have seven of the Hateful Eight. Lets do the last one. I left this purposefully to the bottom, as the person is not a politician. The most visible face of the White House is not the President or his/her spouce. Its not the Vice President either, obviously. Its nobody in the Cabinet, not the Secretary of State or the Attorney General or any of the Secretaries, Secretary of Defense, or Treasury or Interior or Homeland Security etc. The most powerful person in the White House after the President is the Chief of Staff (someone who usually stays very far hidden out of the limelight) but the FACE of the White House is... the Press Secretary. The Press Secretary is on the news several times ever day, representing the President’s agenda and taking questions and dealing with the latest attacks on the President by the opposition, plus issuing White House positions on everything that is happening in in the news.
Now, the Press Secretary is not anywhere near the most powerful or influential person and it is not a Cabinet post and it has kind of ‘no power’ as such. However, of the people around the President, the Press Secretary has the second most access to the President of his staff, on any day, behind only the Chief of Staff. The Press Secretary will have to coordinate the White House’s views - and advise the President and be guided by the President - on all issues that require communications with the press. His or her role, is not as ‘powerful’ or ‘influential’ as say the National Security Advisor or any of the heads of the various major agencies, the Joint Chiefs of Staff etc, but it is PERMANENT and DAILY access to the President. If you were a fan of the TV Show West Wing, this was ‘CJ Craig’ the tall blonde Press Secretary played by acress Allison Janney (and in the last series was promoted to Chief of Staff) who so frequently was central to the stories in that TV show. Her role is very close to reality, as it was designed with the help of former White House Press Secretary and advisor to the TV show, Dee Dee Myers (the first Press Secretary to Bill Clinton almost two years from 1993 to 1994). As various comments from past Presidents like Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and many other senior staff like past Secy of State Henry Kissinger, past Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, past Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and so many others have said, the TV show was very realistic. So lets accept, it is fiction yes, but if you wanted one person who is not a Cabinet level politician, and who could be potentially a political outsider, to have an ‘outsized’ influence on the White House and directly to the President, that would be the Press Secretary. Its a job of incredible pressure and it burns out the people in it very fast. Hillary Clinton already arrives to the White House with a bad reputation with the press overall, and her press team so far, has not exactly impressed us with impeccable excellence. What has happened in the past, is that the President has gone into the MEDIA to pick a new Press Secretary. The last time this happened was Tony Snow who was W Bush’s third Press Secretary and appointed directly ‘from outside’ where he was then a Fox News anchor. Now, the most natural route to becoming Press Secretary is to work with the President’s team as it ran for office and then to get that gig, but lets do Hateful Eight and imagine, who would be the single most hated non-politician, journalist.
Easy question. Public Enemy Number One, to Republicans and conservatices in the ‘liberal media’ is of course ...Rachel Maddow. The sharpest, smartest and fastest mind on TV. A liberal firebrand, and the very soul of progressive thought. She would be ‘way’ far further into progressive and liberal thought than her President, but that is not a bad thing. She would instantly become the progressive movement ‘soul’ of the White House, with her voice heard on all issues - argued like only Rachel Maddow can. Hillary loves smart people around her, this would be one of her brightest. Hillary loves young people and most that I mentioned are old. Rachel is only 43. To fit a ‘Hillary Clinton White House’ she is a woman, duh, she’s an atheist (oh, thats new) and haha, she is an openly lesbian person. Yeah, would fit perfectly the rainbow coalition that Hillary wants to assemble into her White House. If you wanted to pick any one journalist that truly was most hated by conservatives and Republicans, who is a perfect consumate professional in journalism - at its core and base definition, not the farce that modern journalism often becomes chasing celebrity stories on CNN - that is the core of Rachel Maddow. She - like so many in journalism - has plenty of friends on the other side of the aisle, even with Fox News. She is VERY respected in her post and is sitting out patiently, waiting for her slot to take over the one job on TV she was born to do - to host Meet the Press as the true heir to the deceased Tim Russert, after we endure a few more seasons with the not-particularly-impressive Chuck Todd.
Would Rachel Maddow drop everything and take the job to be the official face of the White House with its first woman President, a Democrat? Of course she would. And look at their banter several times now this election cycle, there is a clear chemistry there. I would not be at all surprised if Hillary has already mapped out a posting for little Rachel, that yet that young and not that politically ambitious Ms Maddow is not even yet aware of it. That Hillary is now monitoring her and considering her. If you start to listen to Rachel Maddow and especially see her in any unscripted moments you get that magnificent journalist’s mind. You see it in the eyes of her fellow anchor, far more senior Brian Williams. The real star of the MSNBC network and its future is clearly Rachel Maddow. I am certain Hillary has talked to her inner circle about considering some role for Rachel Maddow in her administration, and Press Secretary is the obvious one. For Republicans and conservatives, of the industry sector they most hate, its the evil lying liberal media. And within that nasty lying evil liberal media, their public enemy number one is Rachel Maddow. If she were to join the Hillary Clinton White House, she would be the last but not least member of the Hateful Eight.
Thats what was on my mind on this lazy Summer Saturday. Imagining the worst horrors of the near future, what would be the absolute worst group of eight to have to face from 2017. The Hateful Eight: Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elijah Cummings and Rachel Maddow. It cannot get worse than that (for eight YEARS). Note, there would also be a Famous Five. The Most inept conservatives and Republicans who drove their dreams into the ditch. The Infamous Five would be led by he whose name shall never be mentioned again, the orange-faced baffoon, the small-fingered vulgarian, the thin-skinned bully (ie Trump). Then there would be his gang of losers, Former Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, Former House Chair Paul Ryan, Disgraced Tea Party ‘leader’ Ted Cruz and disgraced sitting but totally neutered (and ‘pussy-whipped’) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. After the first few years of the Hillary Clinton-Nancy Pelosi-Chuck Schumer show from Washington DC passing one piece of major legislation after the next, and with rising popularity to the Democratic party, those five losers will indeed be getting ever more of the blame. Why didn’t they take advantage of the ‘good old years’ of Obama’s rule.
THEN THE DIRTY DOZEN
Ok, want to go further into the future? Lets play a bit further, go into about year 2020 or so, and we have had the first retirement on the Supreme Court, some old probably liberal judge has retired, and Hillary appointed the promised Judge Garland onto that seat. She is not a firebrand liberal herself, she does like some moderation and Garland is a very moderate, barely liberal judge. Well to balance the first nomination we imagined (Loretta Lynch). Now lets imagine a few more years, and there is the next vacancy. A Judge retires or dies in office. Some are very old by now. And we’ve had President Obama out of office for a couple of years, he wrote his memoirs, he has had a life of enjoying his ‘retirement’ and whatever he decided to get into, but he is waiting. They have a deal with Hillary, I am certain. When that ‘next’ opening comes in the Supreme Court, as long as the Democrats still have the majority in the Senate, then Hillary will nominate and the Senate will confirm Barack Obama as the new Justice to the Supreme Court.
Note, that about this time, after some years of being hated on every side, Chief Justice Roberts may well decide he no longer likes his job and will step down. That might even be when Obama gets in. But, its likely Roberts will not continue long as the Chief Justice as the balance of the court has swung ‘against him’ and then, as more of the older Justices are replaced with ever younger and often ever more liberal replacements. Its likely the balance shortly shifts to 6-3 rather than 5-4 and then Robets would be VERY isolated. Not a nice place to be. And yeah. I can very well see a future where Obama is the new Chief Justice. It is the job HE was meant to do. Listen to his Press Conferences. Listen and you always hear the law professor there, lecturing us on the very minutiae of whatever is on that daily agenda that day. He was not meant to be the President, he was meant to be the Chief Justice in a new liberal era. He’s still pretty young, he could chair SCOTUS for several decades. And say what you will, the truth is that Obama is no extreme bleeding-heart liberal. He is a moderate. A Democrat yes, a liberal yes, but a moderate one. And that would be a good next Chief Justice after a moderately conservative Chief Justice that Roberts has been. But now, our Hateful Eight would get Obama into SCOTUS and that would be one of the worst fears of the Republican party - and the PERFECT poetic justice to their intentional sabotaging of his Presidency.
Now we would have potentially two voices of ‘worst possible hate’ from the Bench. New Chief Justice Obama - his first rulings will be studied by magnifying glass - and still that trusted old lioness, Notorious RBG writing her magnificent rulings. We’ve gone from 8 to 9.
Then what of the most popular person in politics? I’ve said for years she will run for office and she wants to become the first black woman President. If you’ve listened to Michelle Obama’s recent speeches, she is prepping her run. What will she do? We have a good indication on their home after the White House. The Obamas will remain in Washington DC. They will not move back to Chicago. And what will happen in the first years of a Hillary Clinton Presidency when she has control of the Senate and House? She will run through the statehoods for Puerto Rico and.. DC. District of Columbia has the same population as Vermont, will get two Senators and one member to the House. Its an all-black region, of course all of this new state, called New Columbia, will be black. Its Senators will be black and hits House Member will be black. And they will all be Democrats. And the new state also needs a Governor. If Michelle Obama says ‘ok, I’ll do it’ she wins by landslide. She doesn’t have to run for that office, she will get it just by saying yes I can. And she’ll win by massive landslide. Now. What does the GOVERNOR of New Columbia do? She will be enacting laws for the citizens of DC, that the REPUBLICANS have been against. She will instantly gain the ire of the House and Senate Republicans. She joins the hated group which now has grown to 10.
Bill Clinton will be abroad most of the early Hillary years, but by year 2020 we will have a fresh election cycle. And then Bill will be back home, and he will be campaigning for Hillary’s re-election. So Bill will suddenly be ‘remembered’ and hated. He has spent enough time abroad, he wants to touch on domestic issues and defend his often-attacked wife. He will be loud and boisterous and often in the press. Yes, the right wing will re-discover Bill and how much they hate him. Thats number 11.
And one more. What about that second Senator gig in New York. Kirsten Gillibrand will be up for re-election in the 2018 midterms. Now if you were the daughter of a past President and daughter of the sitting President who held that same Senator seat just ten years ago - and you are named Chelsea and are the 38 years of age and you wanted also a career in the family business of becoming US President, then you need to get elected. That Gillibrand seat would be just about perfect for you. All it needs is for mommy to arrange some comfy job for Senator Gillibrand to get away from the Senate. She could be given some Cabinet posting or .. she has studied China and Asia, wouldn’t that be an awesome gig for Gillibrand she could not possibly turn down - Ambassador to China (Gillibrand is ambitious and wants to run for higher office, possibly President at some point). And that would conveniently open up the seat for Chelsea. New York is safely Democratic with a Democratic Governor, so the interim gig is no problem - could even be given to Chelsea haha. Now we have the Dirty Dozen for Republicans to hate in 2020. Obama is back, Bill Clinton is back. And the gang that was the Hateful Eight has now grown to the Dirty Dozen. Hillary Clinton as President, Bill Clinton campaigning as First Dude, Nancy Pelosi with the House, Chuck Schumer running the Senate. Elizabeth Warren with her signature on currency running the Treasury. Bernie Sanders as Labor Secretary. Elijah Cummings as Attorney General. The most visible Governor in the USA is that of DC, the new state of New Columbia with Michelle Obama. Her husband Barack Obama now the Chief Justice, co-authoring the most liberal and damning rulings from the bench, with his partner in crime, the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The youngest of the Clinton Clan, Chelsea as the fresh-faced junior Senator from the evil meccha of liberalism, New York; and the whole story sung by Rachel Maddow as Press Secretary. Thats the worst nightmare for Republicans to come out of Trump’s loss: The Hateful Eight grow into the full Dirty Dozen by 2020.
@maquigon
Name the scandals. Provide links to reporting. Prove your thesis.
I have not seen any reporting about anyone in the administration lining their pockets, committing assault (or murder). Have you?
Posted by: Wayne Borean | June 11, 2016 at 12:54 PM
@Tomi,
Parts of Utah are likely to go Blue if I'm right. Utah is heavily Mormon, and Donald Trump would be offensive to most Mormons (Mormons have little in common with Fundagelicals).
Here's a report on Utah's 4th Congressional District
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3992083-155/doug-owens-leading-rep-mia-love
Here's an editorial which says that the United States is a comic book nation
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3961748-155/gale-we-are-living-in-a
And here's another editorial which says that Donald Trump is Mitt Romney's legacy
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3988250-155/pyle-trump-is-romneys-accidental-legacy
Posted by: Wayne Borean | June 11, 2016 at 01:03 PM
Hi everybody
Ok am assessing Trump 2.2. I just listened to another full stump speech by Trump. Its the one he just gave in Richmond Virginia yesterday. First, he now promises to be in battleground states (so at least as of now, he seems to be signalling that part of the shift to Trump 2.2). Then the previous prevalent hostility to the press was now 'I love those guys' pointing to the cameras in the back of the room (????? He suddenly loves the media? Manafort IS getting through to him). This was a non-teleprompter speech ie somewhat typical stream-of-consciousness Trump but he had clearly some adjustments. He once mentioned (and he should not be mentioning this kind of stuff) but he's clearly still absorbing Trump 2.2 rules, he said he should not mention his old rivals by name. He said it like he had been recently TOLD not to do that, and he kind of spoke outloud what is ringing inside his head.
So yes very CLEARLY a shift to Trump 2.2. He spoke for 40 minutes. Now how effective was the speech. Sigh. So much, so very much wasted time and space on useless pointless and still even counter-productive topics. He still feuded with Republicans. He mentioned Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush by name. He KNOWS he isn't supposed to be doing it, yet Trump cannot have this much discipline to avoid it. Then he told the story from Romney's convention where one of his endorsers (Romney's) spoke for a long speech before finally mentioning Romney right at the end. Yeah, who was that? Its FAMOUSLY the keynote speech by Chris Christie, the front-runner for Trump to consider as his VP. Nice boss... And ringing endorsement of your likely VP.
Why on EARTH would you EVER think of going there? What possible good can it do. It wasted time of your speech that did NOT go into attacking Hillary and did not go to telling your story and your ideas.
Then Trump re-litigated the early primaries (why?) the early polling (gosh why) and the primary FUNDING race (belittling his Republican rivals but not mentioning them by name). Trump wants to claim he is such a smart and competent manager that he can run his campaign more efficiently with less money - fine, but to do that, there is no need to spend about 10 minutes of the 40 minute speech re-living your past glories. He wanted to brag. Its his ego.
Talking about ego - then is the celebration of how many times he has been on the front cover of Time Magazine (?????) Again, is THAT a reason for anyone to vote for Trump? He is bragging, it is an unbecoming trait. He needs to quit doing that. And it was again, wasted time he could have used in attacking his rival.
Now, he mercifully has moved on from mentioning the Judge and Trump U. Good. And no mention of Muslims, no bans, no celebrating Muslims in Jersey. Good. But he still had to do the Wall, of course and have the audience yell that Mexico is going to pay for it. Apparently Manafort has not yet convinced Trump to drop this silly idea. Now weird stuff again - the TV audiences. Who cares and what the fuck. But Trump keeps bragging about how some long-forgotten CNN debate or Fox debate had some record audience viewership. A metric that is irrelevant to voting and one that is now almost a year old. Get over it Trump. You need to advance your CAMPAIGN and not celebrate some pointless measure that is relevant in some OTHER industry than politics.
Now new nasty stuff. Pocahontas. So yeah, the fresh attacks of racism against Elizabeth Warren. We knew he was doing this from the fierce reaction in the media but yeah. He repeated the term several times. Lets see how many days it takes for Trump to be scolded to stop doing that.
Then his 35% tariff on Mexico. He said literally in the next sentence that he is for free trade. At some point he will be ridiculed about this so badly. He really needs to stop contradicting himself within the same speech and especially within 20 seconds.
Of the total speech he only managed about 10 minutes of attacks on Hillary, and some contrasts to his 'positions' and wild promises. It was mainly around taxes and gun control. He also promised some education changes where he really doesn't know what he is talking about.
As far as stump speeches go, he is a great natural talent at speaking, and charismatic, inspirational speaker with great audience contact. But his speech is rambling messy hodgepodge with almost no focus or point. He barely hit any real points to convince anyone who might be in the audience to 'listen' to a candidate (his core supporters don't care) and this speech will convince nobody who is undecided. It was another wasted effort. He wasn't doing MUCH new damage to himself (apart from Pocahontas) but he was still slightly more digging a hole into that mess of the feuding with some Republicans. He sounds like he has dropped his hostility to the press and this speech was not interrupted by protesters so we don't know how he now reacts to those in Trump 2.2.
It is CLEARLY evolution past Trump 1.0. CLEARLY. Far less abusive and incendiary. But compare it to a pro speaker doing a pro speech - Obama, Romney, Hillary, Bill, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie - this was weak. This was mostly another wasted opportunity.
So the campaign is attempting to get the candidate into control. There have been some guidelines that have been drilled into his head, he is nearly remembering them, and the speech has had some clean-ups but a lot of mess still remains. All this effort is potential Trump voters unconverted, while Hillary is on the air with the largest negative ad campaign ever run before the Conventions start, that is killing Trump right now, and his own TV ad budget cannot respond. This is time he cannot afford to waste.
Ok, now I will go watch a whole Hillary (standard, not for example that prepared special foreign policy) speech.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2016 at 06:37 PM
Tomi,
Lets assume your predictions come true and the GOP is routed as much as expected. I would think the party will simply fall apart. The current Republican party is a coalition of three groups that do not like each other. Each group will blame the other two for this disaster. No one will look at themselves and decide they themselves need to change. After this fight is mostly done, a new Republican party will have to be rebuild.
In short, I expect there will not be a party left to hate the democrats. They will be too busy fighting each other.
Posted by: Winter | June 11, 2016 at 06:56 PM
I wonder how the election will go if Trump is not the Republican candidate? He might quit, or be made or bribed to quit. Then the Republicans could nominate someone else, say, Romney, Cruz, or Kasich.
Could that prevent the worst?
Posted by: Winter | June 11, 2016 at 06:59 PM
Hi everybody
Ok, the latest speech by Hillary was the one for Planned Parenthood. Not a stump speech as such, although of course it had elements of that. But this would be a 'tougher' speech than a stump speech, where the topic is now very specialist. An interesting contrast to Trump's generic stump speech.
And wow what a contrast. Hillary of course on a teleprompter. A VERY VERY well written speech, good structure, builds to a crescendo, with many clever speech-writing gimmicks and rehetorical tools. It would read well if you received the written version (where Trump's speech as a transcript would be nearly unintelligable nonsense).
The early parts established excellent raport with the Planned Parenthood audience, where Hillary showed her long history with the group, and her intimate knowledge of its 100 year history and the links to major historical moments. The part set up Hillary as INCREDIBLY knowledgable about women's issues not just in abortion but far more broadly. She used examples of individuals from heroism of Planned Parenthood to cases of saving lives and really mattering to people in various ways like catching breast cancer etc. She wove in very well various voter groups - talking of transgender youth for example, and of various minorities, not just 'women' as a group obviously of interest in a Planned Parenthood event. She also several times brought in men and husbands and fathers.
It was a variation of her stump speech, so on three occasions she brought in attacks on Trump and very professionally worked Trump's own catch-phrase 'Make America Great Again' into the accusation he wants to take America Back Again into history where women were not in charge of their own bodies. She made a clever argument about the Republicans and their decay - that when Hillary first fought for some young women's rights thing (I forget the specifics) in the 1990s (obviously during Bill's Presidency) the Republicans were WITH her (it was something dealing with contraception I think) and its only more recently that the Republicans have turned against women.
She wove constantly in her background, from working with women's issues early in her career - to teaching law - to representing the USA abroad as its First Lady and as Secretary of State - but then always relevant connection points to women's issues and Planned Parenthood. Very very well crafted speech that oozed competence and very deep knowledge of the matter. Details, details, examples, personal stories, and context. VERY good on this specific topic. Then woven in - bang! Attacks on Trump. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood, he said women should be punished for abortions, he calls women fat pigs, he said pregnant women are damaging employers and he thinks paid maternity leave would make America less competitive, etc etc etc. This speech was VERY VERY heavy on facts, on stats, on examples, on actual Trump quotes, and a MASSIVE litany of the history of what EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY has Hillary Clinton done for THIS cause. Also plenty of acknowledgement and thanks to various other Democrats from Obama to Texas former Governor Ann Richards (deceased, but a brilliant orator of her time) whose daughter Cecile Richards is now the CEO of Planned Parenthood and introduced Hillary.
Very competent, just slightly wooden at parts, only slightly 'fun' with to me, too little laughter and happiness - but with a powerful ending on a highly emotional and fiercely fighting mood. Not her best speech, not in the class of say the foreign policy speech or the victory speech earlier this week but this is at least an 8 on a scale of 10, a VERY good 'generic' speech and to a specialized audience, that is incredibly good. Obama could not pull this speech off, his would be far more a 'generic women's issues' speech than this.
(for context, I'd grade Trump's speech a 3 on a scale of 10 being perfect, like Elizabeth Warren's speech now, and 0 being .. Dr Ben Carson on .. just about anything).
In short, a pro speech, delivered professionally. If you were undecided in that audience, you left convinced for Hillary. But that was obviously a partisan audience with nobody not convinced. Of the TV audience who would see her, that speech will convert people (where the Trump speech will not). Also this speech will have plenty she can cut into video clips to share on YouTube on specific women's issue type of topics while the Trump speech has nothing that could be used further.
Yeah like I said, she's the FAR better campaigner and far FAR more disciplined.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2016 at 07:34 PM
Hi Winter
Great two comments. And you know, this is REALLY puzzling me, on an intellectual level. My own MIND is torn. Part of me says, this cannot be happening, parties do not tear themselves apart like this, Trump cannot possibly continue like this, there will be a 'counterbalance' in the ying-and-yang of life, Hillary will also have bad days and Trump will have good days, it simply cannot be that bad. It cannot be.
And then I have to question my eyes. Did I just read that. Did Trump just say that. Did he really do that. And the numbers keep YELLING inside my head. I KNOW what it takes. Its like Elop with Nokia. I KNOW what is the right thing you HAVE to do to win, and I know the EXACT opposite of what you should be doing will HURT you. Thats Trump. Hillary was already ahead by so much, that only something close to a miracle could stop her (against a generic rival like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio) but Trump? He has campaigned the past year, as if he WANTED to set the record for the biggest election loss in history. To lose by more than 22 points.
So what I am struggling with, is 'reconciling' this massive conflict inside my head. Which is right. The 'logic' side that says, no election is ever this lopsided, nobody is this dumb, there are too many variables that are all going one way, it just never is this extreme. Then there are my eyes, and the evidence from Trump - and the math. If the race today is 7 points (polls out in the next few days) that is BEFORE the latest revolt in the GOP that now some Republicans have started to quit the party - because of Trump - and many say openly, they will not vote for Trump - and a few have started to say, they are open to voting for Hillary. BEFORE THE CONVENTION.
This has NOT happened in the TV era. That members of the nominee's own party say - they will vote for the rival candidate - already before the Convention has even started. When those come out (rats who escape the sinking ship) that is only in that last weeks, in October - like with John McCain and Sarah Palin when people like General Colin Powell, a Republican, said he cannot vote for McCain and he will vote for Obama. It NEVER happens this early.
Which is why I REALLY enjoy talking with all you guys here on the CDB blog, because we've now been going down this route for a year, sharing our thoughts. And I can express my astonishment here, and throw in my wild theories and see how it goes. And get your feedback.
On your two questions, I'll do a separate response to them, but wanted to do this over-arching first observation before that. This is bewildering to me. Note, it MUST be baffling also to essentally all sides. Imagine being inside Trump's 'campaign' and the demoralized and probably intensely hostile environment there. When one guy who clearly knows what he's saying - Manafort - says something 'sensible' and then that idiot Lewandowski insists on the opposite - and clueless boss Trump doesn't see reality - or worse, he seems to get it, but tomorrow he does again the opposite. So take the Mexican Judge. A huge wasted week fighting the accusation of racism. A textbook case of racism. JUST when it seems like the campaign is getting over it, Trump does what? Pocahontas. He's a moron.
Now consider the Hillary campaign. They must think/fear this is some elaborate hoax and a weird Jedi move in some 3D chess game that they simply do not know the rules to. How much of their frustration has gone into trying to untangle that hidden strategy of why is Billionaire Trump doing this - seemingly suicidal move. But now consider the REPUBLICANS. Is he or isn't he. Will he or won't he. What has he done now. How bad is it today? What will be the crisis tomorrow, will that be worse than the one we have today and will it supercede today's crisis or will we have to deal with both tomorrow.
There was a cool picture on Twitter. A turtle was placed atop a pillar next to a road. The pillar only came to its tummy, its feet and head were hanging in the air. It could not move, obviously. So the caption had a number of sentences, saying - obviously the Turtle doesn't belong here. He could not have gotten to this place by himself. Someone must have put him there. He cannot get out. He doesn't know what to do. (or words to that effect).
It is the reality for Trump. He is stuck. He cannot win. He may know it already (it emerged that the Bernie campaign had known for several weeks already, internally, that they can't win. Of course they knew). But Trump cannot get out. The longer he waits, the worse it will hurt when he finally quits (or loses the election). That pain, for a narcissist who had what seemed like the world craving his speeches and yelled his name - when they disappear in November, the Secret Service protection is removed, and nobody in the press will call. That will be incredibly painful. When the Republican party will blame Trump for a historic loss - and all conservative media will compete to pile upon Trump, that this was all his fault - and nobody comes to defend him, even his 'own' spokespeople will scramble to blame Trump (to save their own skins) - it will the the worst loneliness Trump could ever imagine. He may well commit suicide. At last Walter Mondale wasn't an egomaniac narcissist.
Ok, enough of the philosophical view. You had concrete questions (next)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2016 at 08:00 PM
Hi Wayne
(Winter, I'll answer Wayne first, he had comments before yours)
First, thanks for responding to the troll. I removed his comment.
On Utah. Yeah, but still weird. It obviously helps that Mitt Romney is so vocally against Trump. What would help Hillary a lot is to do a bit of 'serious religious' campaigning. She is a Christian.. I cannot imagine that we might see a Democrat winning Utah, Kansas or Mississippi. Gosh.
On comic book nation, yeah. Agreed (sadly). And Trump being born of Mitt Romney's run, yeah, I see that. But part of Trump goes back to before that, to Sarah Palin. And part of it is a re-run of Pat Buchanan's campaign. Here is the scary part. Trump has been hysterically BAD at this strategy. Imagine if Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio having run 'the Trump strategy' but done it properly.
So in the primary, court the racist vote, and the nationalist protectionist vote, and the low income blue collar vote. But don't alienate all groups and especially, don't start wars with Hispanics and women. The SMART play on this - in the primaries - could relatively easily win you more than 50% of the vote. Then do the 'intense counter-attack' on all rivals the moment they attack you. Hit them relentlessly and hard, go on all TV networks and make that hurt. That kills off Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Dr Ben Carson, Ted Cruz etc. The anti-Mexicans, anti-Muslims, anti-Women, anti-Media tirades were all a wasted effort that was useless, worthless, that diminished his chances even in the primaries, and now prevent him from winning. Just a little bit nuanced attack plan would have gotten those racists and nationalists and white supremacists and others who love Trump now - they would ALL have come to the candidate without specifically attacking those voter groups.
So this strategy could have worked, and then if the 'alternate Trump' would now be less polluted, only a moderate pivot would be needed to produce a viable, possibly competitive candidate for the general election. The scary part is, that with just some tweaks, this strategy could theoretially win a general election too. Luckily not this way that Trump ran it. And now my hope is that he really does lose by something near 20 points, because then it will be considered so 'inherently catastrophic' as a campaign strategy, that no Republican will attempt it for many decades to come..
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2016 at 08:13 PM
Hi Winter
So first, party splitting apart. You're way ahead of me haha. I had not gotten that far in MY thinking. I am still trying to get my head around this. Is this really happening. Your scenario is VERY plausible. Of course they will try to rationalize the situation, and to lay blame on someone. They will of course primarily blame Trump. But they also will try to lay blame on the other factions of the party. The problem with Trump is that he isn't a factional Republican (like how Ted Cruz would be) so its not easy to suggest one faction of the party is at fault.
But yeah, a break-up of the party is possible. I was expecting the Tea Party to eventually lead to such a break, from the inside (split away from the party). This was well visible as a possible outcome from a brokered convention with Ted Cruz. But Cruz suddenly quit the contest. It was to me UTTERLY out of character for Cruz (it may be that there is a deal between Trump and Cruz, of some kind - Cruz for VP or Trump quits before Convention and pledges his delegates to Cruz?).
Now to me, the most likely way the party would split is a defection to the Libertarians. Former GOP Strategist Mary Matalin was among the first to go, formally changed her party registration from Republican to Liberatarian. Mitt Romney just now hinted that he'll probably vote for the Libertarian ticket. Its a chance for them to steal a good share of the 'Never Trump' Republicans and then it would mean, that the 'Republican Classic' party would become the Libertarians, while the Trump-Nationalist New Republicans would be far more 'pure' in Trumpian style of say protectionism. But for this fissure to 'survive' and become a real split, the Libertarians would have to emerge out of this as a real third party. If its only a protest for one cycle, and that Libertarian experiment fizzles and dies, then those voters and supporters will go back to the GOP especially as Trump the cancer will be gone.
But if we think in terms of political ideology, there is the foundation of a Tea Party as a distinct separate political party (led by Ted Cruz) on the principle of 'burn it all'. They'd have something like 10% national support. There is a separate 'Christian Party' which would have something near 10% say 8% national support. Then there is a conservative Republican rump which should have something like 12% support and a Libertarian sliver with say 3% support. Thats roughly what all vote for GOP (excluding the Independents in the middle).
Then there is also a split waiting in the Democratic party. The Occupy Wall Street movement - Bernie supporters - Socialists - would easily have something around 15% national support. Most of that comes out of Democrats. That would leave Democrats with say 25% support. Throw in a Green party with something like 3%. And you've got about a third of the nation truly uncommitted, Independent, as of today's party affiliation. If all seven parties had seats in Congress and the Senate, and all nominated a President, and the President came from more than two of the 7 parties, we'd be at a pretty healthy system in terms of democracy, but obviously a much less efficient system in terms of how to govern. No party alone would have a majority, they would have to form coalition governments... That in turn would require much more compromise and negotiation and give-and-take. Not a bad thing.
But if only the Republican party splits into 3 parts, they will be utterly meaningless in government and the Democrats would rule as a de-facto Monopoly (like for example in South Africa). Thats a prescription for abuse and scandals and corruption. What I hope is that the Republicans HEAL themselves and return as a strong party. Get rid of the Tea Party sickness and get back to serving voter interests. So away with the false vote outcomes of gerrymandering and massive money elections. If the Republican candidates honestly embraced some conservative principles but stopped with the lunacy, they would be competitive in most districts and could easily win again. But not if they deny science and pursue hate and division and voter suppression...
(sorry I am lecturing, its late my time haha)
Now on the return. Hope is a wonderful thing. How often in so many countries and elections have we seen some party be destroyed, to think they are out forever, or for decades to come, and they suddenly return in a cycle or two or three. The Republicans can win the Presidency if they nominate an electable but highly attractive candidate next time (realistically, unless Hillary's world is in dire straights 2020, it has to be year 2024). So first, no more war on women, no fights to try to deny abortion rights, fully embrace equal pay, paid maternity leave, INCREASE the funding for Planned Parenthood, EXPAND Obamacare, that kind of stuff. Get some women's groups to ENDORSE you. Probably should be a woman to do this, for the Republicans.
Then same with Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc. Absolutely no discrimination. VERY loud vocal, immediate public disavowal of any racist comments by anyone, politician or other. Work with their groups, get their endorsements. It would GREATLY help to be one of those groups if not two haha. Susana Martinez would be good, woman Hispanic; or Nikki Haley, woman Asian; or Condi Rice, woman Black.
Then total acceptance of FACTS and Science. Climate change is real. It will be FAR more obvious by year 2024, gosh, but the sooner that politician made his or her public conversion to accepting it, the better. Same with other silly science positions of the Republicans. Evolution? Have to take a clear break with the religious right. They are allowed to BELIEVE in the literal interpretation of the Bible but the USA was formed on the PRINCIPLE of religious freedom. You are allowed to believe like that, but government CANNOT select one religious belief over another and not substitute religion for facts. I don't think any candidate after this year can ever be elected in the the USA on the religious nutty positions that some hold. It is a REPUBLICAN principle to allow for your beliefs. And not to mandate them on others. That is where the 'alliance' between the Republicans and the religious leaders got lost, when they started to adopt the Christian dogma into the party. No, absolutely not. That is instant ruin to the purity of the PARTY. And they are a MINORITY so if you pander to them, you cannot win the national election.
So yeah, imagine Nikki Haley or Condi Rice or Susana Martinez or someone like that, a Republican, woman, minority, and smart, relatively young, very accomplished (ex Governor or yes, Secretary of State) and then give that woman a few years of excellent public speaking and experience. Have her be a VP this year or in 2020, to rehearse the run. Then a clever campaign and some genius like David Axelrod for Obama (who invented that 'Yes We Can' chant which Obama himself hated) and the Republicans could very easily have a President elected already in 2024. Even after total devastation now in 2016. And THEN around THAT candidate and her views, the new party could reform. Like the Democrats reformed around Bill Clinton, 8 years after the devastating loss by Walter Mondale.
But yeah. I had not gotten that far, I'm only up to November in my mind haha, hadn't thought of the GOP after they awake to their nightmare of the Hateful Eight haha. THEN what. You're ahead of me, Winter... :-)
(more coming)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2016 at 08:48 PM
Hi Winter
Ok then the next scenario. Trump is out somehow (we don't care if he quits or its some kind of palace coup). Party nominates someone else - Romney, Cruz, Kasich (or Rubio). What then.
First off, it cannot be worse. Trump has NOTHING. Hillary spent about 100 million dollars so far, hiring nearly 1,000 people nationally, top notch people into the Battleground States, to prepare her run. Trump hasn't even hired the STATE BOSSES into several of the same states. His total team is only a handful. And they are feuding internally and performing to horribly inefficient level (as judged haha by that stump speech Trump did yesterday in Virginia).
Trump cannot attract top talent. He hasn't got money to ramp up fast. He isn't willing to devote the necessary assets and each hire is a huge fight internally just to get PERMISSION to hire someone and then Trump does dumb stuff like hiring a pollster for New York state.
If a pro came in - Romney and Cruz definitely, arguably Kasich and possibly even Rubio would almost instantly attract a pro core of campaign experts - with more experience and competence than what Trump can get. The fund-raising will be easier while they'd start in a hole - but not as much a hole as Trump who is LITERALLY 44 million dollars in debt to start with. At least anyone else would start at zero. The SuperPACs are attack organizations, they can continue and they'd find it easier to collect money if Trump was no longer the nominee, but their job is to attack Hillary anyway, so they would only get their job easier.
As a candidate, anyone of those four would be FAR better than Trump. The electorate would be severely confused but none of the four would have as big negatives as Trump. They would lose many Trumpistas who are attracted to him personally. Some could be converted to the alternative. Some would stay home and not vote (and some would write in Trump). Whoever it was, they would lose enormously to Hillary. But they would not keep making blatant mistakes. They would run a disciplined campaign. They would not come in with all the baggage of Trump. They would not have half of the Republican party condemning them like Trump has. I think Romney or Kasich could get to a 10 point loss level (but face fierce challenge from the Libertarian ticket of course). Cruz is such a toxic person and the party is not warming to him, even after his attempt at a charm offensive, that he'd probably lose by about 20 points also. Rubio somewhere in between, say 15 point loss. But the PARTY would not be split. The Senate would be lost in any case, but Romney or Kasich would almost certainly save the House. Rubio and Cruz, probably the House would be gone but they'd at least make a fierce fight to try to save it. Trump doesn't care about anything else except himself. He will not lift a finger to try to help win other seats than his own haha.
The longer it would take, the worse it would be. Ideally, if Trump was replaced, it should happen in the time before the Convention. The Convention is one of the last 4 events left, that will definitely happen, that have a chance to change the race. (VP selection and two debates by the Presidential candidates are the other 3, the VP debate won't matter enough to change the race). If it happened after the Convention, then the Convention would be 'wasted' with no bounce for the new candidate. And every week it went past that, would essentially mean the remaining work load would become 8% tougher because the Democrats will not stop running their campaign.
In short, because Trump keeps starting new problems, he is literally making his race more difficult. Doing nothing would be less damaging. And anyone 'sensible' to start instead of Trump would do better. So far, Trump has not done almost any of the prep work which ALL past campaigns in the past 50 years have done, so at this point, Trump is still at the starting line. To abandon his feeble attempt now, would not throw away much of anything of utility, but any sensible candidate could make better use of the remaining time and finish with more than Trump could do - as a campaign from this point forward. The only trade-off is the loyal Trump army of the brainwashed Trumpsitas, who love him. You'd definitely lose some of those but none would go vote for Hillary. And at least some of those Republicans now considering voting for Hillary would 'come home' to vote for the more sensible Republican instead. A better move for the party yes, but not by much. They could not salvage a victory out of it anymore. (same for Paul Ryan as candidate too)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2016 at 09:12 PM
Hi everybody
More news. Politico has article from Romney's donor network meeting in Utah on Friday. Attendees included VanderSloot the GOP donor Billionaire and several other rich people mentioned by name. These are Romney peeps so no love here for Trump. But article speculates that Trump may not pass $300 million in total donations (where Hillary will go far above 1 Billion). To me, 500 million would be cripplingly weak. 300 million? Gosh ouch.
And funny speculation. Trump may have to go and take PUBLIC financing from the government (like McCain in 2008). Election rules say if you take public money, you can't take private money. McCain was severely handicapped by this vs Obama of 2008 who that year broke the fund-raising record of all time. But in 2012 Obama broke his own record and now Hillary is ahead of that trend and will definitely break Obama's previous record. It would be hysterically funny if Trump the alleged Billionaire is so poor (and so bad at fund-raising) that he'd have to take the government payment option instead. Would be epic. Except, that he'd then defraud the government of course and steal the money and shovel it somehow into his own pockets. Still, I'd love that part of the humiliation too. But am not expecting Trump to stoop that low.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2016 at 10:05 PM
@Winter: "I would think the party will simply fall apart."
One of the liberal blogs characterized the core value of the Republican party as: the desire to suction money out of the lower classes moving it upward, and the higher the better. Anything else is a welcome side issue.
Groups against communism, abortion, immigration, crime, gays, plus racists and evangelicals .... All just along for the ride.
@Tomi: with your evaluation of Mr Trump's capabilities, the question is how to get rid of Mr Trump. He has a substantial base in the Republican party and I do not think the party leadership wants to shed them all forever. So what can be done to save the House that will not cause Trump's base to scream "stabbed in the back" and riot?
If I was in charge ... the official Republican Party organization would soon announce they will not support Mr Trump. Yeah, he is our candidate and we are stuck with him, but he gets no money, no help, and no recognition that he is One Of Us. Put ALL energy into saving down ticket races. They could make this move after any new outrage.
Trump on the top all alone, abandoned. This should save the core party for this election cycle, and have a starting point to accrete back those groups that peel off because they feel betrayed or estranged this year.
Trying to keep an association with Trump may lose them everything. Then again, there are good reasons I am not in charge.
Posted by: Millard Filmore | June 11, 2016 at 11:48 PM
On Trump:
Maybe Trump is a result of Romney's failure. But also Trump is a result of Obama's shrewd moves. Obama, just by being black has aggravated the Republican racists. But on top of that, Obama pursued bipartisan stuff, and he got some support from the moderate Republicans on certain issues. That has angered the tea baggers and has intensified the infighting in GOP. That's why I think Obama is in part to blame for the fact the GOP establishment is so hated by the GOP base. The GOP congressmen have failed to stop Obama even though they had the majority, simply because Obama's proposals were to moderate and so reasonable that he got some GOP support from moderate Republicans. The best example of my argument is the Garland move which was meant to expose the craziness of the tea baggers but also it was meant to increase the GOP infighting.
On Clinton's government:
If Clinton will go for partisan stuff, I think she will strengthen the GOP. The GOP will unite against her. The only way to keep the GOP divided is to continue Obama's strategy. Clinton will have no choice but to move to the left a bit, and thus, pursue partisan stuff. The DNC has gotten way to much to the center and the left was awakened by Sanders and it is no longer possible to ignore them if you want their votes.
On Trump's potential replacement:
I think no one wants to step into Trump's shoes. Anyone that replaces him would have very little chance of winning the election. In addition to that, the nominee will get the blame for failing to win (look at what happened to Romney). His/her political career may be in jeopardy after that. Let's take Cruz for example. He is the most successful challenger. The primaries have shown that he can't get much support from the Republican base. How is he going to win the general elections when his own base is only in part behind him?
On SCOTUS:
I would be ecstatic if William Haskell Alsup will get nominated. We need a liberal judge who understands the technology stuff. We need him to stop the patent racketeering. We need him to protect the net neutrality, etc.
Alsup recently ruled the Google vs. Oracle case. He is a Bachelor of science in mathematics. He learned how to develop software applications in order to understand the issues with Java in his court case. Heck, even his name is a programming language (Haskell).
Posted by: cornelius | June 12, 2016 at 06:36 AM
@Millard
"Groups against communism, abortion, immigration, crime, gays, plus racists and evangelicals .... All just along for the ride."
I agree about the party. The Republican party has long ago sold out to, or was corrupted by, big money interests. However, the voters have not. They are run over by propaganda and marketing. The Republican party does not represent their interests. When the voters realize this, they revolt or walk out. Thats is exactly what they did this cycle with Trump.
The link about Trump being Romney's legacy (see above) wrote about this. Maybe that part was largely overlooked. The party establishment, ie, their billionair sponsers, preach about less government. The voters vote for the candidates promising about more government. Be it fascism (Trump), social-democracy (Clintin), or socialism (sort of, US style, Sanders).
To me, it seems the Repjblican voters are realizing that less government is absolutely NOT in their personal interest. On the contrary. When they want to ever see their ideals come true, they will need MORE government.
Posted by: Winter | June 12, 2016 at 09:28 AM
Hi everybody
On Orlando. My deepest condolances to the families. On the political implications, briefly. When I write this, we don't know yet motive and if this is a hate crime or terrorism. The killer was apparently US born but had a Muslim name. He apparently acted alone but may have been inspired by ISIS. We do know 50 dead and over 50 injured. It was a gay club, my gut says at least part of the motive was hate crime, against gays. But we don't know.
If this ends up having an ISIS connection, that would serve to Trump's position and he would benefit politically. The attack at a gay club - and USA's deadliest mass murder event - will bring a lot of discussion about hate crimes and gay rights. It will also most definitely re-ignite strongly a debate about reasonable gun restrictions. Note there was a killing of a pop singer also in Orlando just the night before - shot. This story will dominate the news for several days now.
If you remember Rumsfeld's famous 'unknown unknowns' - this is exactly one of those. It supplants and supercedes immediately all political race stories. For Trump who has had his worst 3 weeks, this is very good break out of his 'bad news' days. If he handles this wisely, he WAITS and monitors and then issues a 'sensible, adult' presidential statement/s as the facts come in. For Hillary, she has her best two weeks. She is experienced enough to know, a week is a long time in politics and her past 2 weeks were incredibly rare in how much they were in her favor. It was bound to end. She had just launched her first official TV ad, she'll probably instantly take her campaign down, off the air and let this story run its course. At best, her campaign would be ignored, at worst, her ads could be seen as attempting to benefit out of a tragedy. She will take a sombre tone out of this, she's a pro. She'll mean while map out the political game, what will be the best way to use this, later - and she'll be pushing gun restrictions based on this event, later.
Who gains in the end does depend on whether there is some ISIS connection to the guy or if it was just a domestic USA hate crime against gays. That we won't really know for a few days. But this now is the top story on US news for many days to come. Note most non-Trump Republican politicians will have a kind of 'silver lining' out of this tragedy - the press will stop asking them about Trump's racism, now all politicians on both sides will be asked about Orlando instead.
Tomi Ahonen (sad day, not smiley face)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 12, 2016 at 05:13 PM
The Orlando shooter seems to have pledged alliance to ISIS. ISIS seems to want to help Trump. Both want all muslims banned from the US.
Police: 50 killed in Florida nightclub terror attack
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/
Another armed man was arrested who targeted the LA gay pride.
'Heavily Armed' Man Apprehended in Santa Monica; Said He Was Going to L.A. Gay Pride Parade: Mayor
http://ktla.com/2016/06/12/man-with-weapons-possible-explosives-arrested-in-santa-monica-said-he-was-going-to-l-a-gay-pride-parade-report/
Posted by: Winter | June 12, 2016 at 08:01 PM
The Orlando shooter might have been mentally unstable and had two fire arm licenses. He worked for a security firm.
What We Know About Omar Mateen, Suspected Orlando Nightclub Shooter
http://abcnews.go.com/US/omar-mateen-suspected-orlando-night-club-shooter/story?id=39790797&google_editors_picks=true
"“He was not a stable person,” the ex-wife said, according to the Post. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”
Officials said Mateen had two firearms licenses, a security officer license and a statewide firearms license, all expiring in September 2017. Mateen worked for the security firm G4S since 2007, the company said, adding that it is cooperating fully with law enforcement."
Posted by: Winter | June 12, 2016 at 08:31 PM
@Winter: guns and the USA. Maybe if a few European countries put out travel alerts on the US our Republicans will get the picture. Havana should have been ready for this, with an advertising blast in Europe about a safe vacation in Cuba.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aFFLERjmJBc/V13eDyn19NI/AAAAAAAAi94/osVxbTCi1ZcwePbGpiwqL2EHs9eIR0xqgCLcB/s1600/Screenshot%2B2016-06-12%2Bat%2B3.10.08%2BPM.png
from here:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics
Posted by: Millard Filmore | June 13, 2016 at 01:48 AM
This is going to wander a bit. Where to start...
OK, let's take Orlando. The shooter apparently claimed DAESH affiliation (I never use ISIS, I rather like the Egyptian goddess), but there is so far no evidence that he was actually in touch with them. I suspect he wasn't, but just claimed the connection to make himself look more important than he is. Some reporting indicates that he may not have been mentally stable. Of course a mentally unstable man with guns may decide to use them.
No matter what the case, 50 people lost their lives, and a lot of people were injured. I've already heard claims that Liberals were responsible because they let all these refugees in (but the shooter was American born), and that Liberals were responsible because no one there was armed, and that Liberals...
You get the picture. The other side of course is pointing to lax gun laws. Neither side is pointing at mandatory firearm training as a solution.
*****
Trump, Trump, Trump. Welcome to our all Trump, all the time station!
Last year, when Trump announced his candidacy I was one of the first to say he was serious. I also came up with what I thought Trump had to have done, based on my own business experience.
I was wrong about what Trump had to have done.
There is no way that Trump gamed this out. Not a single chance. I've been watching the train wreck play out, and so many times over the last couple of months I've seen stuff that ANY COMPETENT POLITICAL JUNKIE could have forecast hit Trump in the face like a creme pie, and him not duck.
He's done the entire run like a freaking amateur!
It just doesn't make sense. Yes, in business mistakes are made. But you learn to plan for everything, including retiring the super fantastic product you were sure the world would beat down your doors to buy and didn't (Lumia anyone?)
Trump didn't have a plan. Not even a fragment of one, besides using his personal popularity.
My god, the man has to be the stupidest Presidential candidate in the last century, if not forever!
So what happens now? It looks like he is going to take the Republican Party down with him, at least for this election. I've been poking around, and I'm seeing polls like this one that indicate that Hillary could take Utah because of a split between Trump and Johnson.
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-utah-polling/
In North Carolina Trump holds a very narrow lead at 1%, which Hillary's cash could change.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html
In Texas Trump is at 2%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_clinton-5694.html
Many of the toss up states have Clinton with a slight lead. Of course this is based on minimal polling to date, and is not definitive, but it is showing a pattern, a pattern that has to have the Republican Party terrified.
*****
If this disaster is as big as we think, could the Republican Party split?
Damned if I know. The Republican Party has been described to me as a 'Big Tent' party, with room enough for everyone. If you aren't Gay, Transgendered, Lesbian, Transgendered, Poor, Transgendered, Hispanic, Transgendered, Native American, Transgendered, Black, Transgendered, or Muslim. Did I mention Transgendered?
The current party is made up of the following groups, with overlap between the groups.
1) Business
2) Conservative Christian
3) Mormon
4) Catholic
5) Tea Party
6) Libertarian
7) Ayn Randers
8) Bob Heinleiners
9) Survivalists
10) NRA members
11) Racists
12) Others
As I said, there's overlap between some of the groups. While there isn't likely to be overlap between the Conservative Christians and the Mormons, both groups have overlap with the Tea Party groups. But Libertarians are mad at the Conservative Christians because much of the original Tea Party was Libertarian in nature, and it underwent a hostile takeover.
One group, Business, has almost nothing in common with any of the other groups, but because of Citizens United has been effectively running the Party. Donald Trump is an attempt to take the party back from the business wing, by backing a business leader. Does anyone see the cognitive dissonance here?
So now the business wing is in deep trouble. Donald Trump is a loose cannon, who even if elected wouldn't do what they asked.
The Conservative Christian Wing is in deeper trouble. They tried to stir up trouble by attacking Same-Sex marriage and it bombed on them. So they went after Trans-Gendered people, and that is bombing on them. Bombing so badly that the popularity of Christians has been dropping.
The Tea Party is ecstatic. Donald Trump is a far better candidate than Ted Cruz, since many Tea Party folks may not be the same denomination as Cruz. But the smarter Tea Party folks already realize they have a problem. A problem they can't do anything about because they pushed everyone to greater and greater levels of paranoia, and now they can't turn if off.
Mormons dislike Donald Trump. So do Catholics, Libertarians, Randers, Heinleiners, etc.
Survivalists and Racists love him.
So how could the party break up? God knows. Most of the groups have little in common with each other. I could see the Mormons and the Catholics getting together. They agree on a lot of issues. Beyond that? Flip a coin.
*****
Hillary has a chance to win such a resounding victory that it could set a record that might never be surpassed. I'm certain she'll carry the Senate. I think she'll carry the House.
If she implements anti-Gerrymandering legislation, the Democrats will hold Congress, and the Presidency for at least twenty years due to demographics, unless there is a major blow up.
Unlike a lot of people, I don't see any major scandals coming out of a Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton is a damned smart woman. She should have learned from No Drama Obama about how to run a smooth, quiet operation. If she did, and she stamps down hard on any corruption that rears its head, she will have a solid eight year presidency.
If she didn't? Well, maybe the second Clinton will get impeached.
We've the last two months of watching Trump put his foot in his mouth up to the hip time and time again, against all reason. Whose to say that Clinton won't do the same given the chance?
Posted by: Wayne Borean | June 13, 2016 at 04:46 AM
@Wayne: "Neither side is pointing at mandatory firearm training as a solution."
In the last 4 years I have heard some details about 2 police shoot-outs. In nice round numbers (police shoot 98 times, hit the victim 12 times), about 9 out of 10 shots go wild. Police are trained way beyond what most citizens will get, and still the odds are against them. Except to keep fools from accidentally shooting their kids, what will training do?
Training? Who needs training? Nobody in West Virginia!
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/06/3757032/wv-permit-concealed-carry/
Posted by: Millard Filmore | June 13, 2016 at 05:49 AM