Friday Reads: The Long Tantrum of Bernie and the Dudebros

518Convention

Good Afternoon!!

It looks like the Bernie bros are determined to disrupt the Democratic Convention in July, despite the possibility that this could hurt Hillary’s chances to defeat Donald Trump in November.

From NBC10 in Philadelphia: City Approves Four Massive Pro-Bernie Sanders Rallies During DNC.

Four pro-Bernie Sanders rallies, with estimated attendance of 38,000 activists, have been approved for public demonstrations during the Democratic National Convention in July, the city said Thursday.

The four rallies, given permits Wednesday night, bring the total to five for approved rallies and marches during what is expected to be a bustling week of political activity in Center City and South Philadelphia. The convention officially runs July 25-28, but two of the five approved rallies and marches of more than 7,000 activists will be held July 24 — the day more than 4,000 delegates arrive from across the country.

NBC10 first reported Wednesday that an anti-fracking, clean energy group called Food & Water Watch was the first to receive a city permit for public demonstration. A group organizer said more than 5,000 activists are expected July 24 at a march from City Hall to Independence Mall.

For the largest of the four pro-Sanders rallies approved, more than 30,000 people are expected to attend weeklong demonstrations called “March for Bernie at DNC,” which will be held at FDR Park in South Philadelphia. It’s within earshot of where conventioneers will gather at the Wells Fargo Center to nominate their party’s presidential nominee.

It’s not clear if these rallies are being organized by the Sanders campaign or by Bernie supporters or whether Sanders himself with speak at them. I’d be surprised if he could resist appearing before large crowds and drawing attention away from the convention itself.

Their permits were submitted by individuals, and the city would not identify them, a spokeswoman for Mayor Jim Kenney said.

She cited personal privacy concerns for the applicants.

The fourth pro-Sanders demonstration approved Wednesday has a sponsoring organization identified.

A group called Black Men for Bernie has been approved to hold a “We the People Restoration Rally” at Thomas Paine Plaza across from City Hall on July 27-28. They will be allowed to gather from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Sanders and his supporters seem determined to turn 2016 into another 1968. It’s pretty ridiculous when you consider that in 1968 people were protesting the ongoing Vietnam war and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. In 2016, the grievances are about a bunch of conspiracy theories complaints debates, delegates and superdelegates, and the nomination being supposedly “stolen” by the woman who is leading by 3 million popular votes.

download

Here’s a very good piece from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune by Norman Sherman, who according to the bio at the end, worked for both Hubert Humphrey as VP and then for Eugene McCarthy.

Lessons from 1968: Bernie Sanders needs to put snide aside.

A cheering audience is a political aphrodisiac. Candidates for president, moved by crowds’ affection, become convinced that they are right, their opponents wrong. The pout of political pride makes backing off difficult later on.

Every campaign, no matter how humble and reasonable the candidate at the beginning, encourages a growing conviction of unique importance. This year, Donald Trump is the leading example, but self-importance is not a partisan condition. Sen. Bernie Sanders is justifiably gratified by his leap from obscurity to a formidable string of primary victories and special success in capturing the hopes of millions, particularly the young and idealistic.

But Sanders’ criticism of Hillary Clinton — constant and repetitious — has become increasingly bitter. That may be productive now, but those words do not disappear when the convention makes a choice and it is not him. They become weapons for the political enemy. In the mouth of Trump, particularly, they would become bludgeon and meat ax.

Sanders should calm down, save the vitriol and think of the consequences of not doing so.

Obviously, Sherman speaks from experience. You’ll recall that in 1968 Eugene McCarthy was passionately supported by young people. After he demonstrated he could do well in New Hampshire, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not run for reelection. The Bobby Kennedy decided to get into the race, and many people who had supported McCarthy switched to Kennedy. George McGovern, who would win the nomination in 1972 and lose 49 states, also got into the act. Humphrey ran in Johnson’s place, but it was too late for him to get into any primaries.

After Kennedy was assassinated, Sen. George McGovern took up his anti-Vietnam crusade, and he and McCarthy — like Bernie Sanders today — aroused huge, enthusiastic crowds, including many young people.

McCarthy patronized Humphrey as weak, sometimes ridiculed him, made him damaged goods for the general election. But Humphrey ultimately accumulated a huge lead in delegate votes.

McCarthy, McGovern and Kennedy had provided focus for the antiwar movement and for those who, for whatever reason, were fed up with Johnson and Humphrey. It took courage on their parts. And they had served the country well.

Once Humphrey was nominated despite their policy differences, McGovern immediately announced his support for Humphrey. McCarthy was silent….

Ultimately, Humphrey lost the election by less than a percentage point. States where McCarthy was immensely popular might have been won with his support and would have provided the electoral votes needed for election.

Sherman says that Bernie needs to decide very soon whether he will be a McGovern or a McCarthy.

139_179544

Tina Nguyen at Vanity Fair: Is Bernie Sanders Becoming 2016’s Ralph Nader?

Just three weeks after offering a conciliatory statement suggesting he was winding down his campaign, Bernie Sanders’s race for the White House has taken on a renewed urgency that has shocked the Democratic establishment with its newly belligerent tone. Despite the fact that it is practically impossible for the Vermont senator to catch up to Hillary Clinton, party leaders are now grappling with the prospect of an ugly, drawn-out fight that could roil the Democratic National Convention in July.

The trouble began at the Nevada state convention on Saturday, which turned violent after Sanders’s supporters rebelled against party rules they perceived as unfair by throwing chairs and screaming at Democratic officials they accused of favoritism toward Clinton. Sandersbarely apologized, instead launching into a verbal assault against the D.N.C., infuriating party figures eager to move on to the general-election fight against Donald Trump. Suddenly, it seems the anti-Establishment rage that until recently threatened to tear apart the G.O.P. is at the Democratic Party’s doorstep. What changed?

According to advisers who spoke to The New York Times, Sanders was re-energized by several polls that suggested he would beat Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, by wider margins than Clinton in several key states. And while his campaign previously signaled that they are aware he can’t win, Sanders is now willing to harm the Democratic front-runner in order to gain maximum political leverage at the convention in Philadelphia. “We have to put the blinders on and focus on the best case to make in the upcoming states,” strategistTad Devine said. “If we do that, we can be in a strong position to make the best closing argument before the convention.”

What closing argument? The race is already over and Bernie lost. If he ever had any realistic chance of getting superdelegates to switch to him, he certainly can’t convince them after attacking the DNC, the Democratic Party, and the likely nominee. But apparently he just can’t accept that he lost to a woman.

That closing argument, increasingly, is taking the form of a concerted attack on the D.N.C. itself—exactly at the moment when Democratic leaders were preparing to shift their energies toward Trump. Now, they face a two-front battle, with Republicans bashing Clinton on one side, and Sanders’s surrogates condemning their own party system on the other. In the wake of the Nevada-convention debacle, the Sanders campaign has doubled down on its critique of the D.N.C., which they accuse of favoring Clinton, refusing to hold additional debates, and helping the former secretary of state fundraise. Animosity toward the front-runner has reached a fever pitch in recent days. On Wednesday, campaign manager Jeff Weaver accused D.N.C. chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of “throwing shade on the Sanders campaign from the very beginning.” And Devine, Sanders’s senior adviser, told theTimes that his team was “not thinking about” whether their efforts might help Trump in the long run. “The only thing that matters is what happens between now and June 14,” he said.

20_179374

Last night the Daily Show weighed in on the Bernie bro situation. You can watch the video at The Wall Street Journal: ‘The Daily Show’ Spoofs Impassioned Bernie Sanders Supporters. I know it’s supposed to be satire, but the woman played by Eliza Cossio is pretty realistic based on what I’ve seen on Twitter and in videos.

Played by “Daily Show” correspondents Roy Wood, Jr. and Eliza Cossio, this Bernie Bro and Bro-ette weren’t so much using their screen time to stump for their preferred Democratic candidate as they were parodying the fervent nature of Sanders’s followers.

If anything, the segment showcased the increasing divide between the Bernie Bros themselves, as Wood portrayed a Sanders supporter who at least seemed willing to vote for Hillary Clinton if and when she claimed the Democratic nomination. Cossio, on the other hand, portrayed a Bro-ette who was steadily losing her grip on reality….

When it came to discussing the recent unrest at the Nevada State Democratic Convention, Cossio and Wood held vastly different stances: Cossio was all for it, whereas an embarrassed Wood said, “Actually, I wasn’t so hot on that – all that unruly behavior, we just can’t be lashing out everywhere.”

Cossio and Wood also disagreed on the death-threat-tinged harassing messages left on Nevada state party chairwoman Roberta Lange‘s voicemail (you can hear excerpts in the video):

“That’s passion,” observed Cossio. “No, that’s a felony,” corrected Wood.

Check out the video at the WSJ link.

518HillaryBernie

The case Bernie has been making is that he is a working class hero who can lure white voters away from Trump in the general election. Is there any truth to that argument? I don’t think so. I think he’s like Gene McCarthy–most of his followers are young people who are idealistic but ignorant about politics and government. Here’s Jeff Stein at Vox: Bernie Sanders’s base isn’t the working class. It’s young people.

After Bernie Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton in the West Virginia primary last week, the national media was ready with an explanation: the white working class.

The New York Times and The Atlantic, for instance, bothattributed Sanders’s win to his strength among low-income white workers. “White Working-Class Voters in West Virginia Pick Sanders Over Clinton,” read NPR’s headline.

This trope has become the conventional wisdom in the media, with the Wall Street Journal, the NationThe Huffington Post, and a host of other outlets (including me at Vox) stating as fact that downscale whites have formed a crucial piece of Sanders’s base.

This interpretation makes for an interesting narrative, but it’s missing the real story. Sanders’s victories aren’t being powered by a groundswell of white working-class support, but instead stem from his most reliable base since the start of the primary: young voters.

Because young voters also tend to have lower incomes, the massive age gap between Sanders and Clinton has sometimes looked to observers like a gap in economic class, according to political scientists Matt Grossmann and Alan Abramowitz.

But the most salient divide in the primary is not between rich and poor. It’s between young and old — and between white and black.

Please go read the rest.

gv051916dAPR

I’d rather be writing about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump today, but Bernie and the bros just won’t go away. I think we need to be prepared for their tantrum to continue for a long time. I hope Bernie wakes up and decides not to be this year’s Gene McCarthy or Ralph Nader, but I’m not holding my breath.

What stories are you following today?

 


Thursday Reads: Berning Down The Democratic Party

Good Morning!!

Finally some journalists are beginning to understand that Bernie Sanders is serious about trying to destroy the Democratic Party in hope that his “political revolution” will emerge from the chaos he and his supporters create. The Party should be focusing on how to beat Donald Trump, but Bernie is enjoying being the center of attention so much that he just can’t stop himself.

When he started running for president, I’m convinced that Sanders didn’t think he had a chance, but once the donations started flowing in and he saw the cheering crowd and read the article lionizing him, he began to believe he would win the nomination and actually be able to run the country his way.

Now that he has lost, Sanders seems determined to take everyone else down with him and hand the presidency to a seriously insane person with no experience in politics or government and no interest in learning about either.

Bernie-Sanders-Caricature-Bearman-Cartoons3

Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast: Bernie and Jane Sanders: The Democratic Party’s Thelma and Louise.

Now we are forced to ask whether Bernie Sanders has decided he wants to destroy the Democratic Party. I’m sure he would say he wants to save it. The way we saved villages in Vietnam. You know the quote.

I don’t allege that he decided to run as a Democrat for this reason. He did so, I’m told by those who’d know, because he did not want to be the 21st-century Ralph Nader and because he knew that running against Hillary Clinton would give him a much bigger stage on which to inveigh against the parasites.

That was then. But now, after the Nevada fracas and his gobsmacking statement in the wake of it, it’s remorselessly clear that he wants to obliterate the Democratic Party. Revolutions take on lives of their own. Robespierre never thought back in 1790 or ’91 that the guillotine would be needed. But as the dialecticians like to say, historical circumstances change. By 1793, those little sheep who’d been misled by sellouts like Danton were part of the…corrupt establishment.

Tomasky explains what he thinks is motivating Bernie and Jane Sanders and Jeff Weaver’s vicious attack on the Democratic Party.

Most things that happen in campaigns tell us something about people as politicians. This statement told us something about Sanders—and, I suspect, about his wife, Jane, and Jeff Weaver, his campaign manager—as human beings. Everything is subordinated to ideology. Basic human impulses are buried. There is only politics, only ideology, only the movement. I’m really glad we’re not in Romania in 1965. I know where I’d be.

I know this because I’ve known lots of people like this. Leftists like Sanders regard the Democratic Party as a far bigger problem in the world than the Republican Party. The thinking goes like this: The Republicans, sure, everybody knows they’re evil. That’s obvious. But the Democrats, they’re evil too. They adopt a few attractive positions, say nice things on certain issues as long as saying those nice things doesn’t really threaten the established economic order, so they’re even worse, finally, because they fool people into thinking they’re on their side. I heard this a hundred times from the old guys who used to hector me at the Socialist Scholars Conference in Manhattan 25 years ago when I used to speak there.

That’s what Bernie is. If he’d stayed in Brooklyn, he’d have been a Social Scholars Conference hectorer. He had the wisdom to move to a podunk state, and the luck to do so just as it was becoming the place where all the aging hippies were moving, and so he became a mayor and then a House member and, finally and exaltedly, a senator.

BERNIES

So many liberal bloggers and journalists have been saying nice things about Bernie throughout the primaries. Yesterday, Josh Marshall finally woke up to reality: It Comes From the Very Top.

Over the last several weeks I’ve had a series of conversations with multiple highly knowledgable, highly placed people. Perhaps it’s coming from Weaver too. The two guys have been together for decades. But the ‘burn it down’ attitude, the upping the ante, everything we saw in that statement released today by the campaign seems to be coming from Sanders himself. Right from the top.

This should have been obvious to me. The tone and tenor of a campaign always come from the top. It wasn’t obvious to me until now.

This might be because he’s temperamentally like that. There’s some evidence for that. It may also be that, like many other presidential contenders, once you get close it is simply impossible to let go. I don’t know which it is. That would only be my speculation. But this is coming from Bernie Sanders. It’s not Weaver. It’s not driven by people around him. It’s right from him. And what I understand from knowledgable sources is that in the last few weeks anyone who was trying to rein it in has basically stopped trying and just decided to let Bernie be Bernie.

Some journalists, like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O’Donnell have basically been surrogates for the Sanders campaign. I’m not sure where Hayes and Maddow stand on burning down the Democratic Party, but Lawrence O’Donnell made it clear last night that he’s on board with Bernie’s plan.

Too bad Marshall didn’t start asking questions sooner.

a00c2dffa3af91ca73429bab541fa734

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum is still holding onto the fantasy that Sanders is basically a good guy who has gotten caught up in power-seeking: The Sad Decline and Fall of Bernie Sanders.

The one thing I do keep wondering about is what happened to Bernie Sanders. Before this campaign, he was a gadfly, he was a critic of the system, and he was a man of strong principles. He still is, but he’s also obviously very, very bitter. I wonder if all this was worth it for him? By all objective measures he did way better than anyone expected and had far more influence than anyone thought he would, and he should feel good about that. Instead, he seems more angry and resentful with every passing day….

I don’t even blame anyone in particular. Maybe Hillary’s team played too rough. Maybe Bernie’s team is too thin-skinned. I just don’t know. But it’s sort of painful to see a good person like Bernie turned into such a sullen and resentful man. And doubly painful to see him take his followers down that path too.

Usually these things fade with a bit of time. Politics is politics, after all. But for Bernie, it’s always been more than politics. I wonder if he’s ever going to get over this?

“Hillary’s team played too rough?” Give me a break. They have held back on many of the attacks they could have used.

images

Some journalists, like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O’Donnell, have basically acted as surrogates for the Sanders campaign. I’m not sure where Hayes and Maddow stand after Bernie’s latest disgraceful behavior, but Lawrence O’Donnell made clear last night that he is still in the Sanders camp.

On last night’s show, O’Donnell hyped the latest Fox News poll that had Trump leading Clinton by a couple of points; of course he failed to point out that poll sample included a larger proportion of Republicans than is contained in the population as a whole.

O’Donnell noted that Bernie Sanders still leads Trump in the Fox poll. He claimed that Hillary Clinton has never been able to raise her standing in polls–she always goes down. He actually went on to advocate that Democratic superdelegates should overturn the will of the voters and make Sanders the nominee!

Here’s Greg Sargent, who has been Bernie-friendly for most of the campaign: Will Bernie Sanders burn it all down?

In an interview with me today, top Sanders adviser Tad Devine — while stressing that Sanders would support the eventual nominee — demurred on the broader question of whether he would, in the end, do everything necessary to persuade his supporters of the legitimacy of the process.

At the same time, in a separate interview, a top supporter of Sanders — Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon — bluntly told me that if Sanders finishes behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote, he should not continue to try to win over super-delegates, and should concede rather than take the battle to the convention.

I asked Devine: If Clinton wins the nomination after all the votes have been cast, will Sanders issue an unequivocal declaration that the outcome was legitimate?

“We’re still involved in this process, so it’s hard for me to declare what’s going to happen at the end,” Devine said. “As we look forward, there are a lot of issues of deep concern.”

Devine cited the DNC’s appointment of former Rep. Barney Frank as the chairman of the Democratic National Convention’s Rules Committee and the appointment of Connecticut governor Dan Malloy as the co-chair of the Platform Committee, arguing that both had been “partisan” in their “attacks” on Sanders.

So the answer is no. The Sanders campaign will continue to whip up the Bernie bros and encourage protests and perhaps even violence at the Democratic convention in July. Democratic leaders need to act now to head these people off at the pass.

tumblr_nuzhig6Bqq1ufgazbo1_500

The Hill reports that Democrats held a closed-door meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Sanders threat: How Senate Democrats are trying to deal with Sanders.

Democrats in the room decided the best course would be to let Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) handle the delicate task of talking to Sanders about the increasingly negative tone of supporters of his presidential bid, according to sources familiar with what happened at the meeting.

“I’m leaving it up to Reid. That’s what the caucus did yesterday. We said he would be the lead on it,” said one Democratic senator. “There was some suggestion that we would all make calls. And everybody said the best idea is to let the leader handle it.”

A senior Democratic aide said that thinking reflects an acknowledgement among the senators that Reid is the one member of the caucus who “has an actual relationship with him.”

Sanders is a political independent who caucuses with Democrats. That’s made him a bit of an outsider with his colleagues, something highlighted by the Vermont senator’s rebuke this week of a Democratic Party he says should open its doors to political independents.

The presidential candidate is not chummy with his colleagues.

 Fellow senators have been known to roll their eyes at his idealistic — some say unrealistic — jeremiads in private meetings. Sanders is known for speaking out at the sessions.

Reid, however, has always been a helpful ally. He gave Sanders the full benefits of membership in the Democratic caucus after his election to the Senate in 2006, rewarding him with the committee assignments he wanted even though he was not a registered Democrat.

Well, Harry Reid tried and failed to reason with Bernie. To paraphrase the famous quote from Jaws, I think the Democrats are gonna need a bigger plan.

So . . . what stories are you following today?

 


Live Blog 2: Kentucky and Oregon Primary Results

Hillary-Clinton-Justin-Sullivan-3

Hey Sky Dancers!!

Here’s fresh thread for Oregon. The last one is getting really long. I had to go out tonight for a family event, so I’m clueless except that Hillary appears to be the winner in Kentucky. We still have to wait a bit before the results come in from Oregon. I’m really hoping Hillary will win there too. It’s time to crush Bernie’s fantasy revolution once and for all.

I’m too tired to write much, but I happened to see this piece at The Hill: Sanders campaign manager: There will be no violence in Philadelphia.

Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, sought to allay the fears of Democrats worried about chaos breaking out at the party’s national convention.

Speaking on CNN Tuesday night, Weaver said the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July would not be a repeat of the bedlam that broke out over the weekend at the state Democratic convention in Nevada.

“There’s not going to be any violence in Philadelphia. We can guarantee that,” Weaver said. “We hope for a very fair and orderly convention. I think everybody wants that. Whoever the ultimate nominee, is we want to unify the party on the back of the convention to beat Donald Trump in the fall. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.”

Weaver called the Nevada convention an “aberration” and “anomalous” compared to what has happened at every other state convention held so far.

Many Democrats are unsettled by the scene that played out there over the weekend.

Well, I’m glad Weaver seems to have begun to understand how serious this is getting, but does anyone think these guys can control the Bernie bros? They haven’t been able to so far.

From CNN: Dems’ new fear: Sanders revolt could upend Democratic convention.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a veteran of Democratic politics, says she never saw anything quite like this before.

Loud cursing, shouting, obscene gestures and vile insults, including crude comments about the female anatomy. It was all on display over the weekend as supporters of Bernie Sanders turned the Nevada State Democratic Convention into chaos.

“I was not able to stop these people for doing what they did,” Boxer, a Hillary Clinton supporter, told CNN. “Apparently they’ve done it before. …. This group of about 100 were very vocal, and I can’t describe it — disrespectful doesn’t even explain it, it was worse than that.”

Boxer is hardly the lone Clinton supporter to experience such harassment on the campaign trail. Several top Democrats told CNN publicly and privately that the energy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters has at times descended into incendiary attacks that threaten to tear apart efforts to unite Democrats against Donald Trump. Several female senators told CNN the attacks have been misogynistic.

What’s more, many Democrats fear that if Sanders does not rein in his supporters, the same ugly scene that occurred in Las Vegas last weekend could replicate itself in the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

“He should get things under control,” Boxer said of Sanders, saying it was worse than the vitriol during the Bush-Gore 2000 recount. “We’re in a race that is very critical. We have to be united. He knows that. I have in fact, called him a couple times, left a couple messages. I’m hopeful he can get control of this.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said “I do” when asked if Sanders should drop out of the race after voting concludes on June 7, giving Clinton a chance to “pivot” to the general election ahead of the July convention.

“I think it would be most regretful if there becomes a schism,” Feinstein said. “That’s what Donald Trump should want: a schism in our party. … It’s the responsibility particularly of Sen. Sanders to see that that doesn’t happen.”

I’m glad some Democratic leaders are finally getting the message that Bernie and his bros are out of control. Harry Reid must be beside himself. He told CNN that Bernie “condemns” the behavior of his supporters last weekend, but Bernie subsequently came out with a statement that in no way condemned it and in fact contained threats and ultimatums. Someone is going to have to sit down with Bernie and do more than talk. They need to explain that he’ll lose his committee chairs and have a primary opponent in 2018.
So what are you hearing and reading?

Bring it on Home to Us! Live Blog: Kentucky & Oregon Democratic Primaries

samcooke-bringitonhometomenothingcanchangethislove(djcop

Good Evening!!!

So, we’re getting closer to the end of primary season and closer to having U.S. President Hillary Clinton!

Tonight, we’ll be watching the Kentucky and Oregon primaries .  Both are closed primaries which means only registered Democrats may vote.

May 17 Primaries at stake for the Democratic Primary.

Kentucky: 55 delegates at stake

(We already have votes being reported.)

Trump was declared the winner of Kentucky in a March Caucus. Right now, Clinton has 50% and Sanders has 37.8% with less than 1% reporting.

Oregon:  61 delegates at stake
Last poll closes at 10:00 PM CT

cover-large_fileThere are some things we need to watch tonight even though Hillary Clinton is quite close to sealing the deal.

 

 

Hillary Clinton continues to move ever closer to clinching the Democratic nomination with each successive primary contest, but Bernie Sanders could get more victories in his column on Tuesday when voters in Kentucky and Oregon head to the polls.

Oregon is the kind of progressive, activist state where Sanders and his kind of politics have long been popular. He is the favorite there. Clinton easily won Kentucky during the 2008 primaries, and it was expected at the start of this campaign that she would run ahead of the socialist Sanders in areas where Democrats are more conservative.

But Sanders’ victories earlier this month in Indiana and West Virginia, states that border Kentucky, suggest he could do very well in the Bluegrass State as well.

Here are some key things to watch for Tuesday:

Sanders’ Advantage: Oregon and Kentucky Have Small Populations of People of Color

Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Clinton during the primary season, and her performance in most states has been directly correlated to their African-American populations. So Kentucky and Oregon present big challenges for Clinton.

Nationally, African-Americans are 13 percent of the population. They are just 2 percent in Oregon, and 8 percent in Kentucky. (In this sense, Kentucky, while generally defined as in the South, is distinct from that region. The black population in neighboring Tennessee, where Clinton won, is 17 percent.)

Latinos (17 percent of the U.S. population) have generally favored Clinton as well, and they are only 3 percent of the population in Kentucky.

Eastern Kentucky Could Be Tough for Clinton

In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton won 118 of Kentucky’s 120 counties, getting 65 percent of the vote statewide, compared to Barack Obama’s 30 percent. In Kentucky’s Fifth Congressional District, the area where much of the state’s coal industry is based, Clinton won about 88 percent of the vote.

But that result may mean nothing now. Clinton also blew out Obama in neighboring West Virginia in 2008, only to lose resoundingly to Sanders in the primary there last week.

Many of the counties in Eastern Kentucky are part of coal country and have similar demographics to West Virginia: few college graduates, small black populations, high poverty rates, and declining economies. If the pattern from West Virginia holds, Sanders will be very strong in this region.

This area is also where Clinton’s controversial remarks about coal are likely to be most problematic.

So far, turnout appears light in Kentucky.

Kentucky Secretary of State spokesman Bradford Queen says say voter turnout has been slow since polls opened on a cool, rainy election day.

The top race on Tuesday’s ballot for Democrats is the presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Republicans held a presidential caucus in March, which was won by Donald Trump. Other major races on the primary ballot include seats for U.S. House, U.S. Senate and the state House.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, left. and Kentucky U.S. Democratic senatorial candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes wave to supporters during a campaign rally, Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2014, at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Ky. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, left. and Kentucky U.S. Democratic senatorial candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes wave to supporters during a campaign rally, Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2014, at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Ky. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)

Oregon would appear to be more friendly to Sanders but the most recent polls show Clinton somewhat ahead.

Oregon would appear to be the perfect place for Sanders’ broadsides against income inequality and the “rigged” economic system. Portland certainly is, but the whole state isn’t as progressive as its most populous city. A poll released least week by DHM Research showed Clinton with a 15-point advantage in Oregon. This has led Sanders to try to pump up turnout in the state.

“If voter turnout is low, if young people and working people don’t send in their ballots, we will probably lose,” Sanders told The Oregonian over the weekend. “Needless to say, what I hope we’ll be seeing is a very large voter turnout.”

There’s reason to believe the Vermont senator will get his wish. Oregon has seen a big jump in voter registrations, especially among the under-30 crowd. “[T]here’s clearly a lot of interest out there,” Oregon Secretary of State Jeanne P. Atkins said. “We have more registered voters than we’ve ever had before.”

Sanders heads into the Oregon and Kentucky vote with momentum and confidence. Clinton has been trying to pivot to the general election for some weeks, and now her rival is pivoting too. Sanders, who has won primaries in Indiana and West Virginia the past two weeks, repeatedly points out that he polls very well against Trump, who is an insult-spewing bogeyman to many liberals.

 

The Clinton campaign has been spending time in Kentucky so we’re real hopeful here.  Grab the popcorn and a seat!!!


Tuesday Reads: Democratic Primaries in Kentucky and Oregon

Matisse-Woman-Reading-with-Tea1

Good Afternoon!!

Today there are Democratic primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. Both actually look pretty good for Hillary. She has spent quite a bit of time in Kentucky and has spent much more than Bernie on advertising there. His donations seem to have dried up, and it’s questionable whether he’ll even be able to buy TV ads in California and New Jersey. Hillary will be the nominee either way, but it would be nice if she won one or both of today’s primaries.

The Lexington Herald Leader endorse Hillary on May 5: Clinton best choice for Ky. Democrats.

Hillary Clinton is the most-qualified person running for president of the United States and has demonstrated the deepest understanding of how to address the challenges facing Kentucky. Kentucky Democrats should vote for her in the May 17 primary.

The difference between Clinton and her leading opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was evident in their appearances this week in Kentucky. Sanders appeared in Lexington and Louisville, giving his standard stump speech to large and enthusiastic crowds. Clinton’s two-day tour of Appalachia included a session in Ashland where she talked with about 25 people for two hours about the region’s problems and promise. Two other candidates on the ballot have not been active in the race.

Clinton, who has served as secretary of state and in the Senate representing New York, in addition to her eight years as first lady during her husband Bill Clinton’s presidency, has an impressive resume and a thorough knowledge of both this country and its place in the world. She’s smart, extremely knowledgeable, thoughtful and — after decades of withstanding virtually every possible attack — unflappable. In a word, she’s presidential.

Henri-Matisse-Woman-Seated-in-an-Armchair-Detail-2

Read the rest at the link. Former Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear also endorsed Hillary yesterday. We won’t know the results until tonight–and I don’t think anyone in the media knows what will happen either. FiveThirtyEither hasn’t made projections for either state. There is an article by Harry Enten up on the site though: What To Expect In The Democratic Primaries In Kentucky And Oregon.

Kentucky doesn’t line up particularly well for either candidate demographically. My colleague Nate Silver’s demographic model, released in late April, projects that Clinton will win the state by about 2 percentage points. Why? In the last general election with an exit poll in every state (2008), whites made up about 75 percent of Barack Obama voters in Kentucky. That’s good — but not great — news for Sanders, who has done better with white voters than nonwhite voters. Blacks, meanwhile, made up about 25 percent. What could turn the tide for Clinton is that Kentucky is aclosed primary, which means only registered Democrats can vote. Sanders has done better among unaffiliated voters in open primaries. There’s been limited polling in Kentucky, but the last poll released there (in early March) had Clinton ahead by 5 percentage points.

Oregon is different. Nate’s demographic model gives Sanders an edge of about 15 percentage points. That’s because whites made up about 90 percent of Obama voters in the 2008 general election. Keep in mind too that Sanders won next door in the Washington caucuses in March by about 45 percentage points. Clinton is expected to do better in Oregon because, unlike Washington, Oregon is a primary and is closed to non-Democrats. I should note that the only two polls taken this year, including one taken this month, have shown Clinton ahead, so it’s possible that she’ll pull it out.

As Enten notes, Sanders will not gain any ground on Clinton even if he wins one or more of the two primaries.

young-woman-at-the-window-sunset-1921

I will share with you that Al Giordano is projecting that Hillary will win in both states. He’s pretty sure she’ll take Kentucky because of the African American vote; and he believes she could win Oregon because as many as 50% of the votes have already been made by mail. In early voting, Hillary is way ahead of Bernie. And remember, both Kentucky and Oregon have closed primaries, so Bernie’s treasured independents can’t vote.

From Politico: Can Hillary flip the script in Oregon and Kentucky?

Sanders victories are hardly inevitable in either state, and if Clinton were able to win both of them, she would finally put to rest the notion that her fellow Democrats are resistant to her candidacy, even if many seem resigned to having her as their nominee.

Polling in both races has been scant, and neither state allows independent voters to participate in the primary — a significant challenge for Sanders, who has struggled to win primaries that are limited to registered Democrats.

Still, Oregon’s demographics track closely with those of states where Sanders has prevailed. The Vermont senator has dominated Clinton in contests in nearby states with similar features: overwhelmingly white and very liberal with active grass-roots supporters.

“I have certainly been expecting — continue to expect — her to lose,” the chief strategist for one of the state’s top elected Democrats backing Clinton said. “I would have told you that I thought she was going to lose very badly. I still think she’ll lose badly.”

The strategist added that Oregon is “prime territory for Bernie demographically, all white. He’s been drawing big crowds of young people and all that.”

We’ll find out tonight.

woman-holding-umbrella-1

In Bernie Sanders news, the Nevada Democratic party has filed an official complaint with the DNC about the behavior of his supporters at the Nevada Democratic Convention.

A few more links on the Nevada chaos:

The Nevada Dems on Medium: The Facts about the Nevada Democratic State Convention on Saturday.

John Ralston: The sour grapes revolution that rocked the Paris Hotel.

The New York Times: From Bernie Sanders Supporters, Death Threats Over Delegates.

As you have probably heard, the great Al Giordano has officially announced that if Bernie supporters disrupt the convention, thus making it more difficult for Hillary to defeat Donald Trump, Al will move back to Vermont and run against Bernie in the Senate primary in 2018.

Bernie Sanders is campaigning in Puerto Rico today, and he’s apparently in a foul mood.

This man does not have the temperament to be President–not by a long shot.

In other news, we still have a racist, xenophobic, misogynistic wanna-be dictator running on the Republican side. A few interesting reads on Trump:

David Cay Johnston at The National Memo: Trump Used His Aliases For Much More — And Worse — Than Gossip.

What we can show is that when Donald Trump made deceptive phone calls over decades — posing as a Trump Organization vice president named “John Miller” or “John Barron” — he was not always puffing up his reputation as a philandering ladies’ man. In his fictional identities, Trump could also be quite threatening, as revealed in the brief clip below from Trump: What’s The Deal?a documentary film that he successfully suppressed for 25 years with threats of litigation.

The story erupted Thursday when The Washington Post put online a recording of Trump posing as “John Miller,” in a 1991 interview with People magazine reporter Sue Carswell. The fictitious “Miller” described himself as a newly hired Trump Organization publicist for the company boss….

woman-in-blue-or-the-large-blue-robe-and-mimosas-1937

Trump also used the name John Barron or Baron (he later named his son Baron).

“John Barron” didn’t just puff Trump’s sexual boasting in the press. “Barron” was also menacing, as revealed in the [a] film clip [from the documentary] about his abuse of Polish immigrant construction workers – and the attorney who tried to help them.

Trump: What’s The Deal recounts a wide variety of Trump lies, exaggerations, and manipulations, but the misconduct of greatest interest to voters may be his threatening litigation in a scheme to deny payment to about 200 illegal Polish immigrants tearing down the old Bonwit Teller building on Fifth Avenue (an act of architectural vandalism). Many of the men lacked hardhats or face masks, used sledge hammers rather than power tools, had to pull out live electric wires with their bare hands, in a building laced with asbestos — all in blatant violation of worker safety laws.

A lawyer trying to get the workers paid the meager $4 to $6 per hour that Trump owed them received a bullying telephone call from one “John Barron,” as recounted in the film:

Narrator: Chapter Six. [Voiceover various images of Trump Tower and Trump]

 Threaten the lawyer that the Polish illegals hired after your cheap contractor defaults on paying them. Make sure that the threats are untraceable, in case the guy isn’t scared off.

 Interview On Camera: John Szabo (lawyer for Polish workers):

 “Mr. Barron had told me in the one telephone conversation that I had with him, ‎that Donald Trump was upset because I was ruining his credit, reputation by filing the mechanics liens [legal action intended to enforce payment]. And Mr. Trump was thinking of filing a personal lawsuit against me for $100 million for defaming his, uh…reputation.”

 Narrator: It turned out that Mr. Barron was Donald Trump’s favorite alias.

 When this was revealed Trump said, “What of it? Ernest Hemingway used a pen name, didn’t he?”

You can now view the entire 80-minute documentary, which is a superb examination of Trump’s mendacity and manipulation of journalists and politicians. It’s available for $9.99 on iTunes.

seated-woman-back-turned-to-the-open-window-1922

Here’s a sobering piece from Simon Johnson at Reuters: Commentary: Win or lose, Trump could cause a recession.

Trump contends he can run Washington far better by treating the federal government like one of his companies. He has a very particular style as a real-estate developer, and his general approach to business could indeed be applied to fiscal and monetary policy. Any way that you look at what Trump is inclined to do, however, the result could lead to unprecedented disaster on a global scale.

Trump has already demonstrated a great ability to make the kinds of inconsistent comments that,  — if coming from the mouth of a president — would scare investors, create a great deal of uncertainty, push up interest rates, lower employment, drive down stock market prices and cause the bottom to fall out of the value of other assets.

This kind of destabilization wouldn’t just have negative effects on investor and consumer confidence in the United States. It would spread rapidly around the world and drive up interest rates, bankrupt private-sector companies and plunge countries into a downward default-recession spiral. U.S. exports would naturally crater in this scenario because U.S. allies and trading partners would be in deep crisis and could not afford to buy American products.

The Trump ripple effect would really be a devastating global tidal wave of rising interest rates….

On debt, Trump believes the more the better. His companies issue a great deal of debt because, in the downside scenario, developers like Trump can find ways to pay less than the face value of what is owed. He recently said this approach is an opportunity the U.S. Treasury is losing out on.

The U.S. government, however, is not a speculative real-estate company. Alexander Hamilton realized, at the very start of the nation that having the federal government pay its debts in full, as well as assuming the states’ debts, was of fundamental importance. This was crucial not just for public finance but also for the ability of the private credit markets to operate in a reasonable fashion. And this is what Washington has done for more than 200 years.

“Risk-free debt” is how U.S. debt is described in the world of finance. Once you introduce default risk into those calculations, interest rates would spike for both the government and the private sector.

The paintings in this post are by Henri Matisse, of course.

I won’t be around tonight until late, but if we need another post, Dakinikat will post a live blog to discuss the primary results. What stories are you following today?