Hillary Clinton 2016 – Page 7

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 20, 2016

Let’s start with the infamous Donald Trump and his Trumpettes whacking protesters at his rallies:

COW Trump Anger

Trump isn’t alone. This happened in the past. Ronald Reagan, as Republican Governor of CA said after Kent State: “If it takes a bloodbath, then let’s get it over with.” James A. Rhodes, Republican governor of Ohio, said about student protesters at Kent State:

They’re worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes. We’re going to eradicate the problem, we’re not going to treat the symptoms.

Onward to the GOP and SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell, our #1 Constipational scholar, says “no” to a previously appointed Constitutional scholar:

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

Judge Garland should take his cue from namesake Judy Garland in Wizard of Oz and say to the Senate, find a heart, find a brain. But mostly, find some courage:

COW 2040

Or as the cartoon shows, all the seats on the Court could well be vacant. Never before has the Senate insisted that it can simply ignore the president’s nominee and refuse to participate in the process required by the Constitution. They should not start now.

The GOP has trouble squaring the circle about the people’s voice being heard:

COW Double Jepordy

The general election shapes up as who can use the Force more effectively:

COW Darth Candidates

One explanation for Putin’s pull-out from Syria:

COW Putins Tiny Hands

What Will The Anger in Today’s Politics Create?

From part one of the WaPo’s four-part article, The Great Unsettling:

So much anger out there in America.

Anger at Wall Street. Anger at Muslims. Anger at trade deals. Anger at Washington. Anger at police shootings of young black men. Anger at President Obama. Anger at Republican obstructionists. Anger about political correctness. Anger about the role of big money in campaigns. Anger about the poisoned water of Flint, Mich. Anger about deportations. Anger about undocumented immigrants. Anger about a career that didn’t go as expected. Anger about a lost way of life. Mob anger at groups of protesters in their midst. Specific anger and undefined anger and even anger about anger.

And more:

In this season of discontent, there were still as many expressions of hope as of fear. On a larger level, there were as many communities enjoying a sense of revival as there were fighting against deterioration and despair.

We do not really know which party will pay the piper in November; the results are not even close to being knowable. Right now, the middle ground between the two parties has become more permeable than ever before in living memory, in large part due to failed expectations by both parties.

The Democratic Party has a deep fault line between its FDR-inspired branch, and its corporatist branch, represented these days by Hillary Clinton, which uses a surface fealty to social issues to differentiate it from the Republicans.

The country lucked out with FDR. He was a pragmatist, with no love of theory, and a willingness to entertain any idea on the basis of whether it would “work” or not. He was better than most other pols because, more than any other president after Lincoln, he was willing to look objectively at the ideas proposed by the left. Here is FDR on October 31, 1936, reflecting on his first term:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.

FDR was also willing to look at right wing ideas. In fact, he campaigned in 1932 on the promise of balancing the budget, an idea that could have been catastrophic. He revived the idea in his second term, almost sinking the New Deal, but the better ideas won out.

By contrast, the Republican Party is a collection of “high-minded” people, each with an obsession from which she/he cannot be dissuaded; like believing that tax cuts create massive GNP growth, or as Donald Trump believes, America can have tax cuts, undertake a huge military buildup and balance the budget without any cuts in benefits to Americans over 55.

Republicans continue to think the US is a “Christian” nation, they think only English should be spoken, and that all immigrants should be deported, and some believe that the 16th Amendment (allowing the federal government to levy taxes) should be repealed.

By contrast, the Democratic Party is a coalition of broad-minded people, trying always to stitch together interest groups and their needs with a leader of consequence to deliver change.

There are two schools of political thought when it comes to elections:

Vote for the person, not the party
Vote for the party, not the person

Democrats believe in #1, while Republicans believe in #2. This is why R’s will accept Trump as a presidential candidate, and it is why Dems think that is a crazy idea.

But Republicans didn’t count on Donald Trump, or his hostile takeover of their Party.

The question for the rest of 2016 is whether all of the manifest anger expressed by Americans will be put to good use, or if it will be used to give voice to thuggery and racism (Trump) or religious extremism (Cruz).

Public service is a duty and the calling doesn’t come quickly or easily. And that high-mindedness is absent in those that go into politics to gain personal wealth and power, like The Donald, or most of those in Congress.

Careful What You Wish For in The Primaries

After Super Tuesday, Part Three, it is hard to see how anyone but Trump wins the GOP nomination. But given that there are still powerful forces who stand against him being the Republican presidential candidate, the fight will continue, particularly if he doesn’t win enough delegates in the primary season to win on the first ballot.

On the Democratic side, Hillary won big. As of this writing, all of the delegates have not yet been awarded, but so far, Clinton has won the race 326/220 (60%/40%). As primary night wore on, Wrongo heard many Dems saying how happy they would be to run against Donald Trump in the general election.

Dems should be careful what they wish for. It isn’t a completely new phenomenon for Dems to root for a Republican presidential candidate that they perceived to be an easy target, and be wrong.

Think back to 1968. This wasn’t a great year for Dems, considering that the convention was held in Chicago during a year of riots in more than 100 cities following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Both Kennedy and Sen. Eugene McCarthy had been running against the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey. There was violence on the convention floor, outside the convention center and at Grand Park.

With all that going on, it is doubtful that Dems paid much attention to the GOP primary contest, but they were relieved when Nixon was nominated. After all, a Democrat had beaten him in 1960 (JFK) and 1962, when Nixon lost the California gubernatorial election to Pat Brown, and famously said: “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.”

But, in 1968, Nixon won the popular vote by the very narrow margin of 0.7 of a percentage point, while easily winning the Electoral College, 301-191.

In 1976, Dems probably were unhappy to be running against Gerald Ford, who had replaced Nixon when he resigned in 1974, since incumbents have a strong advantage. Ford defeated Ronald Reagan by a narrow margin on the first ballot, but Jimmy Carter won the general, pitching himself as a reformer.

In 1980, Dems probably were happy to run against Ronald Reagan instead of George HW Bush, but they lost in a three-way contest.

By 1988, Dems thought George HW Bush couldn’t possibly win. But the Dems ran Michael Dukakis, and Bush won.

In 2000, Dems were delighted to be running against George W. Bush instead of John McCain, and proceeded to lose to him twice.

In 2008, no GOP candidate had a chance to win unless they repudiated the 8 years of the Bush/Cheney administration. So McCain was no longer feared by Dems.

In 2012, none of the GOP candidates came anywhere near close to being strong enough to deprive Obama of a second term.

Therefore, Democrats who want to run against the person they believe to be the weakest GOP candidate have a poor track record, one that blinds them to the weaknesses of their own candidates during the Democratic primaries.

Trump vs. Clinton is the general election race that the establishment Dems want, but it seems risky to Wrongo. Hillary isn’t an inspiring candidate, rather, she’s probably about on par with John Kerry, another career politician.

OTOH, Trump’s campaign style is almost tailor-made to defeat an elitist associated with practically every economic and political failure of the past 30 years. He now has months to refine how to go after her, and years of material to use.

So be careful what you wish for, Democrats.

Free Trade’s Double-Edged Sword

The Bernie Sanders win in Michigan is chalked up to his attacks on trade agreements, in particular, the Trans Pacific Partnership that resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street. Along the way, Donald Trump has been plowing the same ground, talking about how America is losing jobs to Mexico and Asia.

So the question is, are we seeing a political backlash against trade? Can Sanders or Trump gain sufficient political traction to win with this issue? And can we blame trade for losing jobs to China and elsewhere?

Jared Bernstein in Monday’s New York Times made an excellent point: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

The economic populism of the presidential campaign has forced the recognition that expanded trade is a double-edged sword. The defense of globalization rests on viewing Americans primarily as consumers, not workers, based on the assumption that we care more about low prices than about low wages.

When you hear politicians speak about free trade, they talk about cheaper products. They sidestep the terrible impact on American jobs, they sidestep the concern that many, many jobs have been lost through free trade agreements. The free trade deals have also exacerbated the loss of union power, which means fewer (and lower paying) jobs, fewer hours, and poorer benefits, including pensions.

The trade topic is obviously a huge driver of Trump’s and Sanders’s appeal. It is a problem for Hillary, since she was for the Trans-Pacific Partnership before she was against it.

Despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum, the two populists are using the same message: The government, both political parties, and business are working at cross-purposes with the needs of the American people. In a democracy, populism is a warning sign that government has been disconnected from its citizens. Consider that while Americans lost at least 4 million jobs, corporate profits are up, and the 1% has gotten much wealthier.

It’s true that off-shoring is good for the global economy. Chinese people working to make iPads are richer than they were, but it’s not a win-win situation. It’s more of a win-lose, where Chinese workers win relatively big, while American workers lose medium.

Another problem is that workers directly impacted by trade have little power or influence in their firms or the country as a whole. In the US, exports only make up about 13.5% of GDP. But in Sweden, Denmark or Germany, exports are north of 40% percent of GDP. And these countries, with far fewer natural resources, have robust social safety nets in addition to high wages. And as Bernstein says:

The real wage for blue-collar manufacturing workers in the United States is essentially unchanged over the past 35 years, while productivity in the sector is up more than 200%.

Why? Because governments in these other countries stress building high-skill industries that compete based on producing high value-added products, while low-skill industries that compete based on exploiting their employees are discouraged. This is called having an industrial policy, which encourages business to meet government priorities. In America, we are against having industrial policies, because it sounds like socialism.

Bernstein points out that the free trade negotiation process has been captured by investors and corporate interests:

According to the Washington Post, 85% of the members of the outside committees advising the administration on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership were from private businesses and trade associations (the rest were from labor unions, NGOs, academics and other levels of government).

And that’s the world we live in. Business is driving most of the decisions that our politicians make, ensuring that whatever is enacted is primarily good for business, and secondarily, if at all, for We, the People.

And in the world we live in, free trade has significantly boosted wages and quality of life for overseas workers and has helped lift millions of Chinese and other Asian citizens out of poverty, while our middle class, a prerequisite for our stable society, has been hollowed out.

Yet, America’s plutocrats and politicians push for even MORE free trade.

The current election cycle may horrify the “political establishment,” of both parties, but it was preordained by their bought-and-paid-for politics.

Americans have a real gripe. They don’t see, or care about the benefits to Chinese and other third world workers that lower or stagnant wages at home help to provide. The Bernie win in Michigan and Trump’s success in the GOP primaries show people are super pissed off.

Our political parties better start coming up with ways to mitigate the trade and wage problem before someone like DonDon actually succeeds in becoming president.

Hillary’s Under-reported Uphill Slough

Wrongo didn’t watch the Democratic debate because it was up against the series finale of “Downton Abbey”. Some think that the effort to bury the Dem debates in popular TV time slots is a conscious decision by DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, designed to make Bernie Sanders less competitive with Hillary Clinton.

Conscious or not, few people are watching these debates.

One thing that is overstated in the Democratic primary process is Bernie’s uphill slough with African Americans. The accepted pundit logic is that he does so badly with AA’s that he has no chance to win.

What is overlooked in that analysis is that the 20 primaries held so far have split 12-8 in favor of Clinton (based on who won the majority of committed state delegates). Clinton does have a big lead in delegates, 1130 to Sanders’s 499.

So, consider what Bernie has been able to accomplish. In winning 8 states, he’s exposed a Clinton weakness: She doesn’t do well among the most committed white Democrats – the kind of folks who turn out for caucuses in states like Iowa, Minnesota, and Colorado.

And then there is the under-reported uphill slough by Hillary Clinton: That the Sanders campaign is out raising Clinton’s funds. He’s raising his money from ordinary citizens (five million individual donations at this point). And, unlike Clinton, WaPo reports that he does it easily:

Sanders outraised Clinton again in February for the second month in a row, bringing in $42.7 million to her $30 million. On the last day of the month alone, he brought in $6 million online as the campaign used social media to egg on his backers to give, give and give again.

The WaPo also reported that Clinton has had to take two days off the campaign trail to raise money in California for use against Sanders in the primaries. And in a one-week stretch later this month, she is scheduled to make seven fundraising stops in six states — Georgia, Tennessee, Connecticut, Virginia, Washington and California.

Bernie’s funds-raising power has triggered concern among some Clinton allies that it will weaken her — not only because she must spend so much money competing against him, but also because he is criticizing her in ways that could dampen enthusiasm for her in the fall. She may risk donor fatigue when the general election gets under way.

Perhaps one reason why Clinton may risk donor fatigue in the late stages of the election is that she has already tapped many large potential investors. From 2013-15, she earned $21.4 million in speaking fees from 91 organizations. Those funds did not go into her campaign, or into one of her Super PACs. The funds went into her own accounts, making her a member of the 1%.

You can see the listing of the organizations that paid her an average of $235k per speech here.

As Scott Lemieux of LGM said, paying people six figures (plus luxury perks) to deliver rote speeches is one of the more egregious mechanisms by which America’s overcompensated elites reward each other.

Are Trump and Sanders a Ripple of Populism, or a Wave?

Since sophomoric jokes have failed to derail Donald Trump’s presidential campaign (e.g., running silly pictures of Trump, mocking his soundbites while ignoring his policies and his authoritarian condemnations), let’s try understanding what’s happening.

So, is Trump a problem, or just a symptom of the problem? And folks, what is the problem? The Donald captured the essence of “the problem” in his Super Tuesday victory speech: (Brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

People in the middle-income groups are making less money than they were 12 years ago. And in her speech, [Hillary Clinton] said, ‘they’re making less money.’ Well, she’s been there with Obama for a long period of time. Why hasn’t she done anything about it?

Trump for the win! He asks a question that neither Hillary Clinton, or the Establishments of both parties, have a satisfying way to answer (so far), something like what we said about John Kerry being “for the war before he was against it.”

The nation’s real problems are those articulated by Bernie Sanders, but he is not a messenger who can win in the fall. But his popularity, and that of Donald Trump show that we are looking at the swelling of a populist wave in America. Maybe it is still far from the beach; maybe it is just a ripple. We will know in November, but early signs are that the wave could be big when it hits us.

Consider Trump’s victory in the Massachusetts primary – 310,847 voted for Donald Trump. That gave him 49.3% of the vote in a five-candidate race. A pretty overwhelming endorsement, even considering that independents can vote in either primary, and many use that option to vote against a candidate.

The next day, Massachusetts’ Republican Governor Charlie Baker refused to endorse him. He said that he did not vote for Trump on Tuesday and:

I’m not going to vote for him in November.

Charlie Baker is immensely popular with pretty much every segment of the state’s voting population; his job approval numbers are about 70%. He’s perceived as highly competent at running the government, he’s socially liberal, and people just plain like him. So, Baker doesn’t need the Trump wing of the GOP.

Trump isn’t going to carry Massachusetts in November, Clinton and Sanders totaled 1,190,500 votes between them. But the current populist resurgence will not end with Bernie’s failure to win the Democratic nomination, or with a Trump general election loss in November, because the underlying anger isn’t going away. Remember that Trump and Sanders totaled 897,500 votes in MA, to Hillary’s 603,800. From Fabius Maximus:

Populism’s resurgence has, as always, terrified our ruling elites and their servants. Since most journalists don’t understand it, Campaign 2016 is a series of surprises to them.

Maximus goes on to say that from the start of Trump’s campaign, the similarities between Trump and Andrew Jackson were obvious: Trump’s isolationist foreign policy (but bellicose towards threats), his hostility to minorities and Wall Street bankers, his concern for the poor, his appeal to national greatness — these same views also astonished the elites in 1830 when Andrew Jackson rode the wave to the White House. The 1830 elites despised Jackson like today’s elites despise Trump today.

Jacksonians were the first populists in America to gain power. Even today, their strain of suspicion of federal power, skepticism about both domestic and foreign do-gooding (welfare at home, foreign aid abroad), opposition to federal taxes, but obstinately fond of federal programs seen as primarily helping the middle class (Social Security and Medicare, mortgage interest subsidies) continues.

These “Crabgrass Jacksonians” constitute a large political bloc in America. Crabgrass Jacksonianism sees the contemporary homeowner working on his/her modest suburban lawn, as a hero of the American story.

The Establishments of both parties may have fun demonizing their populists, but they ignore the similarities between the strategies of Trump and Sanders, and the appeal both have to significant numbers in both parties. Separately, progressives and populists are weak. If they can be combined as they were at the time of the New Deal, they can be a huge force for change.

US News reports that historical patterns and political data all show that the real presidential election battle takes place in just seven states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire. Based on recent Clinton vs. Trump head-to-head polls in these seven states, Trump is within striking distance of winning the general election against Clinton.

For those who believe a Trump presidency is not really possible in today’s America, you may want to re-think that proposition.

That populist wave may be closer to the beach than you think.

Bonus Cartoon Thursday – March 3, 2016

How about an extra helping of political cartoons in honor of the silly season? After Super Tuesday, you might need some Bernie Crème:

COW Bernie Creme

Instead of “Yes we can,” Democrats have adopted a new slogan this election year: “Why try?” In spite of Hillary’s Miami victory speech, which sounded like it was written by Bernie, Clinton supporters believe we shouldn’t aim high, that we shouldn’t try for broad fundamental change, because we might fall short. Why is it better to proceed incrementally, to settle for less than we deserve because we might not get everything we want? Why do the establishment Dems proceed from the presumption that settling for incremental change is the only way to real change? Didn’t they learn anything from the 2014 mid-term elections?

Justice Scalia non-nomination creates GOP euphemisms:

COW GOP euphamisms.png

The Parties have selective views of what is realistic when choosing a candidate:

COW Trump Bern

Why is a huge corporation protecting us from our government? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

COW Hal Phone

Preparing for Trump

Yesterday was Super Tuesday. The results will tell us lots about the state of the Democratic Party, but despite the outcome on Tuesday, Democrats have a variety of issues worth thinking about heading into the general election this November. In this primary cycle, Democratic primary voters just aren’t showing up. Democrats in 2016 primaries are only voting at two-thirds of the rate that they did eight years ago. All told, about 1.18 million Democrats across those first four states went to the polls in 2008. Just under 870,000 showed up this time. That’s 26% fewer voters engaged.

But, you’d think that Sanders, who’s message is a political revolution, could energize the disaffected in great numbers, but it just hasn’t happened. Perhaps it is the right message, but the wrong messenger. And no evidence of a “political revolution.”

Yet Trump is doing just that. GOP turnout in primaries is up 24% over 2008. It is a safe bet that if The Donald is the GOP nominee, there will be a big Republican turnout in November.

There are other concerns: With the Sanders vs. Clinton contest, the Democratic Party is also at risk of imploding, right along with the GOP in its tussle with Trump.

Sanders is seen as unusually honest for someone who’s been a politician for much of his life, and he advocates a refreshingly anti-establishment view on core issues that matter to an increasing number of Americans. These include American militarism, Wall Street bailouts, a two-tiered justice system, the prohibitive cost of college education, healthcare insecurity and a “rigged economy.”

OTOH, Hillary is committed to a third Obama term and incremental change. She has been forced by Sanders to move left, and is paying lip service to some of his issues. Once the general election season begins, it is likely that Hillary will be the candidate for America’s political status quo, vs. the radical alternative of Donald Trump.

Bernie’s supporters understand this, and may or may not go compliantly into the voting booth to elect Hillary, despite the terrifying prospects of a Trump presidency.

Tea Party Republicans understand that the GOP Establishment offers them little. And more and more rank and file Republicans have come to the same conclusion, which is precisely why the GOP nomination is now Trump’s to lose.

Democrats are teetering on the same precipice. The Dem Establishment, this time represented by Hillary, offers weak tea. The Sanders wing could easily sit this one out, and by late summer, when polls show that Hillary is in a death struggle with a political novice, political pundits will be tripping over each other to write about the death of the Democratic Party.

Democrats are in a bind. They want progressive politics, but offered by an Establishment leader.

Dems are always looking for that. In 2008, they selected Obama because he represented change and empowerment for average people over Hillary, the Democratic Establishment candidate. People wanted something new and different. Obama’s presidency wasn’t a failure, unless Democrats accept nothing less than ideological purity from their presidents.

Or, look back at recent presidential elections. Oh the glee among Democrats in 2001 when GWB won the nomination. It was gonna be a cakewalk for Mr. Democratic Establishment Al Gore. Gore did win the popular vote, but lacked an influential brother in Florida. With Establishment candidate John Kerry in 2004, his vote for the Iraq war was his downfall. How do you run successfully against an incumbent when you agreed with the incumbent’s major disaster? Saying you were “for it before you were against it” was an epic fail. Kerry never figured that out, and lost.

The 2008 election was easy for not-quite Establishment Obama, since the GOP was badly wounded by the GWB administration and GOP Establishment McCain lacked the personal horsepower to defeat him.

If 2016 is an Establishment Clinton v. an anti-establishment Trump, some of the Establishment GOP may choose sit it out. There is a small possibility they could go full anti-McGovern, as Establishment Dems did in 1972. If anti-establishment Sanders is the nominee, the GOP Establishment will find a way to make a deal with Trump, and the Dem Establishment probably won’t do enough to prevent Sanders from losing.

If the US economy hits a rough patch before November (and there are several reasons to expect that), Clinton as the Establishment nominee could be dead meat. Sanders, OTOH, could end up a stronger candidate because of it. We also need to remember that Donald Trump is not an ideologue. He brings no core convictions to the table, other than ego, so he will continue to say whatever works with his fans.

Will a Trump win kill America? That depends on whether our country’s immune system, that body of informed citizens who are engaged, and who bother to vote, can effectively fight the infection.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – February 21, 2016

The preliminary results from the Nevada Caucus gives the win to Hillary Clinton, while the preliminary results from South Carolina say that Donald Trump has won, with second place too close to call at this point.

For the Democrats, the mainstream candidate now looks quite likely to take the nomination, while on the Republican side, the insurgent appears to be the one who will be the nominee. The Sanders Democrats will fall in line behind Clinton for the general election, because they know that no issue in this election trumps judicial philosophy, and the nation can’t survive another Scalia.

Here’s why: Federal judges have great power over our democracy. We could review many of Scalia’s decisions, but let’s just focus on three:

• The five Supreme Court judges (including Scalia) who decided the 2000 election by awarding the White House to George W. Bush.
• Or, the five judges (including Scalia) who decided Citizens United, saying that big corporate money was speech.
• Or the five judges (including Scalia) who gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The judiciary controls many, many aspects of our lives; therefore, the importance of having federal judges who reject far right-wing ideology cannot be overstated.

On to cartoons. Who will walk in Scalia’s shoes?

COW Scalia 2

Obama has about as much chance of getting a Supreme Court nominee approved by Senate Republicans as he does of convincing the average GOP voter that his Hawaiian birth certificate is genuine:

COW Scalia 3

GOP dilemma: Let’s honor Scalia by ignoring the Constitution:

COW Ignore the Constitution

Obama gets a lesson in the Senate’s Advise & Consent process:

COW Clarence Votes twice

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – February 14, 2016

Happy Valentine’s Day. The news of Week That Was included the New Hampshire primary, another power grab by the Supreme Court, the Zika virus, and proof of the existence of gravitational waves.

Some people have an embarrassment of riches on Valentine’s Day:

COW Valentines Day