Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

I’m with Brian Fallon

Campaigns are complicated things. No one gets every piece of them right. Some candidates are great at big rallies. Some are good only at small events. Some are terrific TV communicators but bad on the stump. Some delegate well, and others don’t. Some never waver from a message, while others can’t seem to find one with a 10-foot pole. It’s a high-wire balancing act every day with tens of millions of people watching.

Trump is making a real mess of his campaign, Chris Cillizza, Washington Post, Jul.10

Okay, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that 10-foot poll line two weeks ago, which is why I remembered it today.  It was no mystery which two candidates Cillizza had in mind in drawing that contrast in that sentence.

Throughout Clinton’s campaign pundits and ordinary voters alike have wondered what exactly her justification is for running for president.  But I am not among them.  Her justification, from its outset, has been that she’s a woman and that this particular glass ceiling must be broken, now, and by her.  That was, and remains, it.

Thus her cringe-inducing statement at that debate last winter that she doesn’t understand why people think she’s a member of the establishment.  After all, she’s running to become the first woman president.

And thus the focus of her speech on the night of the California primary, which it turns out troubled a number of her advisors as much as it did me.  Which is, a lot.

Amy Chozick has an article in this morning’s NYT titled “Hillary Clinton’s Team Seeks a Balance: Celebrating Women Without Alienating Men” that begins:

PHILADELPHIA — When Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic presidential nomination last month, her campaign put together a video that framed Mrs. Clinton’s victory as a giant leap in the women’s movement. Scenes of suffragists, Gloria Steinem and little girls in their mother’s arms flashed on the screen.

The footage brought some of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers to tears, but others asked a practical, and delicate, question: What might men be thinking?

Good question. But I’ll amend it: What were women, as well as men, thinking?  The ones who think this election is really, or at least mostly, about the economic and political-power issues that Bernie Sanders has built his campaign around.  That Elizabeth Warren (no less a female than is Clinton) has built her public career around.  That Donald Trump has so fraudulently coopted, these days interspersing his claim to fight the economically and politically powerful on behalf of working class whites with his actual fiscal and regulatory policies written—literally—at the Heritage Foundation.**

Trump is now openly seeking donations on behalf of a superPAC operated by and for some of the most fiscal and regulatory regressive billionaires and multimillionaires in the world.  

Yet he’s apparently winning among white working class men who aren’t all that enthused about Building a Wall, Barring Muslims From Entering This Country, and, now—again, literally; unabashedly—turning this country into a fascist state because five police officers in Dallas were murdered by a mentally disturbed man after he lured them with a 911 phone call.

Yet the Clinton campaign, according to Chozick’s detailed article, now debating “how much her nomination this week should be focused on women.”  Chozick writes:

Some advisers believe that overemphasizing Mrs. Clinton’s historic achievement as the first woman to accept a major party’s nomination could backfire, driving away men who favor her Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, and alienating younger women who are less motivated by gender. The result is what Democrats describe as a cautious mix, attaching the women’s movement to issues like the economy and health care. …

“This has been a long, drawn­-out debate,” said Tracy Sefl, a Democratic strategist who worked for Mrs. Clinton in 2008 and has been involved in discussions with her 2016 campaign about women’s outreach.

The debate inside the campaign about the focus on women during the convention was described by a person involved in the planning who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations.

The discussions date to the start of the campaign, when some advisers suggested she choose Seneca Falls, N.Y., the birthplace of the modern women’s movement, to hold her kickoff rally.

Others questioned whether she should visit the town at all. In the end, she started her campaign in New York City, and in April, her daughter organized a “Women for Hillary” event in Seneca Falls in her mother’s place.

A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, did not respond to questions on Sunday about the internal discussions, other than to say, “It will not be lost on anyone that she is a woman.”

So here’s something Clinton should understand: Every time she suggests that the purpose of her campaign is to make history as the first woman to become president she also suggests that she truly doesn’t get this election—that she doesn’t understand the economic populism of this moment.  That is true even though some of the traditional women’s policy issues she will talk about also are very much economic ones.

Brian Fallon is not, I’ll just say, a favorite among Clinton spokespeople, and I know that other fervent Sandinistas shared that sentiment over the last year.  But I think I can speak for all Sandinistas—Sanders Bros and Sanders Sisses alike—in supporting his advice to the candidate: “It will not be lost on anyone that she is a woman.”

And if she really thinks we’re stronger together she should let that speak for itself.  It will not be lost on anyone that she is a woman.

A huge problem for Clinton and her campaign has been that its unremitting focus on things everyone already knows, and its failure to educate the public about things most or at least many people don’t know about Trump’s actions.  Their specifics.  His very modus operandi.  And, for heaven’s sake, his fiscal and regulatory policy proposals.

Also from the Chozick article:*

She drives me crazy with this woman thing,” Misty Leach, 43, a high school teacher who voted for Senator Bernie Sanders in the primary, said of Mrs. Clinton. “‘I’m going to be the first woman president’ to me just feels like she’s entitled.

To me it just feels like she wants to be sure no one misses that she thinks this is what is most on most people’s minds.  Excuse me, on most women’s minds.

Clinton should think back to her husband’s War Room’s famous mantra: It’s the economy, stupid.  This time the campaign’s internal mantra should be: It’s the economic and political power, stupid.

I think Trump made a serious mistake last week in “pivoting” from a (faux) anti-establishment-economic-and-political-power theme to a (bizarre) law-and-order one, which I found bizarre. (I didn’t watch any of that convention, but have more than enough about what transpired.)  In Clinton’s case, the opposite is necessary: She needs to pivot away from her campaign’s raison d’être, and toward the raison that matters.

*The quote and comment about it that follow were added on 7/26 at 1:44 p.m.

**Paragraph rewritten to make sense, 7/26 at 8:10 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (25) | |

The most important endorsement of Clinton other than Sanders’ and Warren’s came today … from Al Gore

Paul Waldman has a lengthy post today at the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog titled “Despite what you’ve heard, Democrats aren’t in disarray. Their party is under attack from the outside.”   He argues that the Democratic Party itself isn’t that divided, and that the divisions really are between Democrats and the outsider Sanders supporters who are trying—Sanders’ efforts to thwart it, notwithstanding—to thwart Clinton’s election.

I agree with most of what he says, but not the ultimate point that the Democrats themselves are really very divided.  Yes, he says, there certainly are many Democrats who supported Sanders and who are dissatisfied with Clinton’s level of progressiveness, but they will vote for her anyway, and that means that the party itself is not very divided.  He lists the many platform positions that were forced by Sanders, and says that is insufficient to gain the support of many Sanders supporters, but only the ones who aren’t Democrats.

He’s right about the latter point, for the most part, but not about the former.  As an ardent Sanders supporter and a Democrat, who is no Clinton fan but who nonetheless wouldn’t be caught dead not voting for her in this election, I can attest that the party is quite divided—between Clinton fans and Bernie supporters who nonetheless, like me, wouldn’t be caught dead not voting for Clinton in this election.

Sanders is one of them, although I guess he’s not really considered a Democrat.  But Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat, who clearly favored Sanders but who will do all she can to help Clinton in this election.  And Al Gore is a Democrat who, I’m guessing, favored Sanders, and who today endorsed Clinton.

He knows that earth really is in the balance in November.  And he is the most powerful living symbol imaginable of the abiding harm that the Sanders supporters who are trying to undermine Clinton want to do, and can do.

But Waldman is wrong about something else, too: his dismay that the many major platform concessions to Sanders and his supporters doesn’t satisfy the hostile Sanders supporters.  It doesn’t satisfy them not because they feel the concessions don’t go far enough—they do feel that, but then so do I—but because most of these folks fear that Clinton will backpedal on the policy concessions once in office.

But Sanders and Warren are current senators.  So is Jeff Merkley.  And Sherrod Brown.  And Dick Durbin.  And Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed.  And Tammy Baldwin.  And so, hopefully, will Russell Feingold and Tammy Duckworth, and three or four others, be.  They’re revolutionaries.  And they will have real power.  But only with a Democrat in the White House.

This is one of the unremitting messages that they need to drive home.  Another is Trump’s genuine fascism.  They need to educate the public about the specifics of that—what Trump has actually said.  What he’s referring to.  What he plans.  As well as what his fiscal and regulatory plan is.

I would love to see Bernie Sanders campaign with Al Gore, and together run down the many ways this country and the world would be profoundly different had Gore rather than Bush been the one inaugurated in January 2001.  They can begin with the Supreme Court, and move on to environmental regulations.

I can’t fathom the point of trying to help elect Trump in order to bring down Wasserman Schultz’s candidate.  Least of all in the name of Bernie Sanders’ revolution—which if Clinton is elected is positioned to march through Georgia, with or without her push.  Okay, well, through Washington.

Tags: , , , Comments (21) | |

Ugh. Okay, still …

In a letter co-signed by 15 other Senate Democrats — and every Senate Republican — Kaine asked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to exempt community banks and credit unions from many of its regulatory requirements. In justifying these exemptions, the letter suggests that these regulations would make it more difficult for these small banks to continue “spurring economic growth” and that such rules are unnecessary, anyhow, since community banks “were not the primary cause of the financial crisis.”

This latter point is a bit of non sequitur. Just because a reckless activity was not the “primary cause” of the last global economic crisis doesn’t mean that activity isn’t worth preventing. According to the Intercept’s David Dayen, the rule Kaine proposes “could allow community banks and credit unions to sell high-risk mortgages or personal loans without the disclosure and ability to pay rules in place across the industry.” Such bad loans may not take down our financial system, but they could ruin the lives of the families that receive them.

In a second letter to the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Kaine and his co-signers argue that large regional banks like PNC, BB&T, and SunTrust should be exempt from two regulations meant to reduce their risk of collapse.

Currently, these banks are required to issue daily reports about their levels of liquidity, so as to assure the government that they hold enough assets to cover a 30-day period of financial stress. Kaine and 69 of his colleagues would like to exempt regional banks from this requirement, regardless of their size.

Kaine would also like these banks to be exempted from the “advanced approaches” capital requirements that dictate the ratio of reserves a bank must hold to cover potential losses. At present, any bank that holds $250 billion in assets is deemed systemically important and thus subjected to these requirements. Kaine argues that this threshold is too low, in light of the fact that the financial sector has grown substantially since the rule was written. Since regional banks “do not share the same risk profile or complexity as their larger, systemically important brethren,” the letter writers argue, they should not be forced to comply with the same regulations. But it’s not clear why the signatories believe that the collapse of a large regional bank wouldn’t create significant ripple effects in our deeply interconnected financial system.

While Kaine stepped up to the plate for banking interests this week, he simultaneously snubbed consumer-advocacy groups. On Wednesday, Kaine was one of 13 Democratic senators to withhold his signature from a letter authored by Sherrod Brown, which called for strengthening new rules against abusive payday lenders. The senator’s office told the Huffington Post that he is “working on his own separate ‘Virginia-focused’” letter on payday lending.

Clinton VP Favorite Just Gave the Left Two More Reasons to Distrust Him, Eric Levitz, New York magazine, yesterday (H/T Naked Capitalism)

An article I read late last night (I can’t remember where) said Clinton had been leaning toward Kaine partly because she thinks he will help her win votes of white men because he is originally from the Midwest and is, well, a white man.

That concerned me, because it suggests that Clinton sees white men as somewhat fungible: What matters is the region of the country he hails from and the fact that he is white and male.  But this election season has shown rather clearly that there are two distinct types of populism, one far more important in the South than elsewhere, the other far more important in the Midwest and the Northeast—respectively, the racial and xenophobic white-grievance mania that Trump has promoted so successfully, the other traditional economic-populism issues of the sort that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have come to represent in the minds of so many voters.

The article I read last night also reported, and the New York magazine article also says, that Bill Clinton had been pushing strongly for Kaine.  This too concerns me.  Bill Clinton remains ossified in the ‘90s; there has been indication upon indication of that in the last year.  He makes Hillary Clinton look observant of the current political climate.  Hillary Clinton spent the last year and a half until roughly three weeks ago seemingly unobservant of the current political climate—the very morning after the California primary, when she effectively secured the nomination, she was on the phone to moderate Republican donors, apparently on the assumption that they couldn’t figure out for themselves that if they couldn’t abide Trump they should support her, since she’s the only actual alternative.  So Bill Clinton’s feat is notable.

And Hillary Clinton’s decision to choose Kaine suggests what I, and I know many other progressives, fear: that she is manipulated by her husband to an unnerving extent.

I’m on a listserve of Sanders supporters whom the Clinton campaign occasionally targets with messages from Clinton promising to be a progressive president, and last night I received a message titled “Welcome Tim Kaine”.  It begins by assuring that she and Kaine both are genuine progressives.  The rest of the message is, I assume, the message she sent to her supporters announcing her choice of Kaine.  What caught my attention was something that also caught my attention when I read his Wikipedia page last night before posting this post (and titling it as I did): Kaine graduated from Harvard Law School and then practiced law in Richmond.

Why Richmond? I wondered when I read the Wikipedia entry, which doesn’t answer that question.  Kaine had no ties to Virginia.  And, it hit me, after graduating from Harvard Law he didn’t work for the government and didn’t work for a corporate mega-firm.  Yet he did practice law.  That’s really important.  (Trust me.  It is.)

In her email, Clinton details this.  After graduating from Harvard Law School, Kaine moved to Richmond to litigate against that city’s pervasive racial discrimination in housing.  He practiced law there, in Richmond, for 17 years.  Just ordinary law, I guess (although Clinton doesn’t say); not law of the corporate variety, I presume.

This matters.  But not as much as, I fear, Clinton thinks.  Economic populism matters right now in domestic policy, beyond all else.

I can’t emphasize enough that there is, I’m pretty sure, nothing that would cause me to not vote for this ticket.  But I’m a single vote.  And the way to win the votes of enough white men in Midwestern swing states is run on the progressive economic policy platform that so largely reflects Sanders’ and Warren’s policy prescriptions, if not enough.  It is not to rest on the belief that a majority of voters want experience and steadiness.  And that a majority of white men in swing states care mostly about whether or not the candidate has chosen a white man as her running mate.

____

UPDATE: I want to really emphasize my point above that Bill Clinton apparently is having disconcertedly undue influence over Hillary in critical respects.  I’ve just read more about Kaine’s time as governor, and while these essentially Republican actions and positions he took may well have been necessary in order to enable a potentially successful Senate run, this is not a candidate who should be the Dem VP nominee, least of all in this election cycle.

As I say above, I was just dismayed when the very morning after the California primary, Hillary Clinton was on the phone soliciting contributions from moderate Repub donors.  But in thinking about this today, I realize that this probably was at Bill’s  elated suggestion.  This is NOT good–this retro chokehold on the current nominee.

Added 7/23 at 12:47 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (16) | |

Imagine a Dem VP nominee who can speak with clarity about antitrust legislation to limit the market power of Big Ag (and other such things)

I don’t want to compare myself to other people [in contention for the job], but I will tell you I’ve spoken with so many groups and I’ve represented those folks as a small-town lawyer, as a small-town mayor, as a state senator, then representing the state. I understand those folks and their struggles,” [Agriculture Secretary Tom] Vilsack said. “In this particular election, given the uneasiness people have about Mr. Trump in small towns where I’ve been working, there’s an openness [to Democrats].”

Vilsack stock rises as Clinton nears VP pick:The former Iowa governor is the subject of increasing speculation within Clinton’s political orbt., Gabriel Debenedetti and Helena Bottemiler Evich, Politico, today

One of my pet peeves about Hillary Clinton is how mindless—how autopilot-y—her political instincts are.  I wrote recently, and had written earlier, about her factually off attempt last summer to pander to current and aspiring small-business owners by promising that she could have the federal government streamline the time it takes to start a business and cut down on regulations on small businesses.  The federal government plays virtually no role in the regulation of small businesses—local and state governments regulate most small businesses—and the role that government at any level plays in business startup time is a matter of about a week for most businesses.

But hiding in plain sight were things she could have mentioned about the role that the federal government could play in things of critical importance to small business owners of various types.  And some things that, thanks to Dems, it already does.  Specific regulation of the financial services industry, for example—such as the Durbin Amendment, a form of antitrust regulation of Visa and Mastercard concerning business fees for credit and ATM card transactions, enacted by the Dem.-controlled Congress in 2009—has mattered a lot, and should be strengthened.  And other antitrust enforcement and proposed legislation, such as to decrease the market chokehold of the major transportation companies and Big Ag, would make a significant difference to small-business owners, including farmers.

Elizabeth Warren talked about this in a highly publicized speech a couple of weeks ago.  And Bernie Sanders discussed it often on the campaign trail, including, in Iowa, proposals for antitrust legislation to limit the market power of Big Ag.

Clinton reflexively equates the possibility of Dems attracting white rural and small town residents with triangulation.  I myself have long believed that standard-issue triangulation is not the ticket to winning some support in rural and small town areas, but that specific sophisticated policy discussions about nonconventional issues—such as about antitrust regulation—is.  Ditto for small-business owners and aspirants.

The rap on Vilsack apparently is that he’s boring.  And that he wouldn’t make a good attack dog against Trump.

I don’t think Clinton needs an attack dog, in the conventional sense, as her running mate.  Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both get extensive media coverage for what they say, and people really listen to and care about their speeches.  They’ll play a tremendous dual role in educating the public about the Dem platform—and the Repub one.  And Warren can skewer Trump like she was born to do it.

My own choice for VP nominee is Sherrod Brown, whom I’ve been a huge fan of since he appeared on my radar screen during his 2006 Senate campaign; he and Dick Durbin are my favorite senators.  Brown would make a wonderful candidate, and would appeal to rural and small town voters precisely because he’s a liberal—in ways that would matter to them.  But I share the hesitation about him that Clinton and other Dems have: his seat would be turned over to a Kasich appointee for a while.

And I think his teaming up with Sanders, Warren, Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Baldwin and Jack Reed in a Dem-controlled Senate, along with a couple of new true progressives, would prove historic.   Which is what I think Clinton should campaign on.

As for progressive NeverHillary holdouts, I think they should understand the possibilities that would come from that.  And, conversely, from this.

These. People. Are. Crazy.

Tags: , , , , , , , Comments (5) | |

Britain’s New Prime Minister Openly Channels … Bernie Sanders?

[New British Prime Minister Theresa] May — who campaigned for “remain” in last month’s E.U. referendum — had vowed to unify her bitterly divided party by appointing “leave” and “remain” advocates alike to top posts. She has made good on that pledge.

But she also chosen to banish Gove and others who had been critical players in David Cameron’s government since he brought the Conservatives back to power in 2010. Another key figure who found himself out of a job was George Osborne, who had been the country’s top finance official.

Cameron, Osborne and Gove had together been known as the “Nottting Hill set,” a group of relatively young, Oxford-educated men who sought to modernize a party long known for its fustiness. May is also studied at Oxford, but was never considered part of that clubby grouping. …

The thorough sweep came just a day after May’s rise to power abruptly ended a chaotic, weeks-long leadership void in Britain.

Minutes after curtsying before a handbag-toting queen at Buckingham Palace — the moment May formally ascended to the country’s highest political office — she pledged that a post-E.U. Britain will prosper in its new incarnation, and become more fair and more equitable.

“As we leave the European Union, we will forge a bold, new, positive role for ourselves in the world, and we will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few but for every one of us,” May said as she stood in front of 10 Downing Street for the first time as prime minister.

May’s speech marked a striking departure from the typical austerity-laden rhetoric of her Conservative Party. Instead of dwelling on the deficit, the country’s second-ever female prime minister emphasized the need to fight “burning injustice,” saying she will work on behalf of the poor, women and minorities.

She also pledged to defend the “precious bond of the United Kingdom,” a nod to her determination to beat back a revitalized secessionist movement in Scotland driven by opposition to the decision to leave the European Union. …

May has been a hawk on the issue of reducing the number of immigrants entering Britain and pushed for a greater government role in electronic surveillance.

Her views on foreign and economic policy are less known. But in her first major speech on the economy this week, her tone was more liberal than expected — emphasizing the need to spur growth and close the gap between rich and poor.

Theresa May puts stamp on British government with mass firing of Cameron ministers, Griffe Witte, Washington Post, this morning  today

Whoa.  Okay, it is by now well acknowledged that Bernie Sanders effectively won the party platform debate, for the most part, anyway.  And my take on Clinton’s comments to us Sanders supporters is that they were sincere; I didn’t view the video or read a transcript, but did read two or three articles about the rally that quoted Clinton’s statements to us, and they sounded sweet, graceful and true.

I think she realizes now that she not only needs most of Sanders’ supporters but also has a better chance to win potential Rust Belt Trump primary voters and also stanch the damage from the Comey email statements last week with the platform as it is rather than as it would have been without the Sanders campaign.

But never in my wildest imagination did I expect that the new British prime minister would coopt so much of Bernie’s campaign language.

The paragraph from the above excerpt of the Post article about defending the “precious bond of the United Kingdom” would seem irrelevant to our presidential campaign, but I do think it’s relevant because Scotland voted (overwhelmingly, I believe) against Brexit.  In other words, May did not direct her Sanders-esque language solely at that Brexit, anti-immigrant, xenophobic British voters but also at Britain’s Bernie Sanders supporters’ counterparts.

The article’s sentence that “May has been a hawk on the issue of reducing the number of immigrants entering Britain and pushed for a greater government role in electronic surveillance” obviously is not Sanders-esque.  Yet apparently she chose in his speech not to mention it.

That so much of her statement today on economic policy apparently took Britain by surprise reflects the swiftness with which major Western politicians are awakening to the remarkably sudden shifts of the political tectonic plates from their positions of the last 40 years.

And I’m so proud to have been a part of the catalyst, if only a teensy tiny part.

****

AND BREAKING NEWS: It looks like PENCE!  As in: Hey, all you folks who thought I’d bring CHANGE.  Apologies.  But I decided instead to go seriously ESTABLISHMENT.

No worries, though.  I’m giving all you Rust Belt types who support me cuz of CHANGE a steep discount for classes at the soon-to-be-revived Trump University.

And by the way, I will absolutely continue to deny that I plan to resign before the inauguration or shortly afterward, this just-kidding-about-anti-establishment-and-change thing not be enough to defeat me cuz of Hillary’s email thing.  (Okay, I’ll just make sure the DONORS recognize that I will, so I don’t havetuh fund my campaign myself. But the upside is that I’ll be available as a professor at Trump U.)

Well, praise the Lord.  Hillary Clinton is, I’m sure.  (I mean, not that Christie would have been better for Trump.  But since Pence is even more Retro than Trump’s pompadour, it’s better for us true progressives and will absolutely highlight our party’s platform.  It’s different than Christie would have been.)

Perfect.  Today is a good day.

But please, Hillary Clinton, choose a true progressive as your running mate.  Seriously; heed Prime Minister May’s tacit advice.  (And mine, of course.)  Pretty please.  Beautiful please.

Tags: , , , , , , , Comments (8) | |

ANTITRUSSSTTT! (Bernie Sanders did SO talk about antitrust during his campaign. A LOT. But thank you, Elizabeth Warren, for picking up that mantle now.)

A detailed update follows the original post.

____

Is the window closing on Bernie Sanders’s moment? A number of folks, your humble blogger included, have suggested as much. We’ve argued that with Democrats seeming to unite behind Hillary Clinton, it’s possible that the longer Sanders withholds his endorsement for her in the quest to make the party platform more progressive, the less leverage he’ll end up having.

But a new battleground state poll from Dem pollster Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps suggests Sanders’ endorsement could, in fact, still have a real impact, meaning he may still have some genuine leverage to try to win more concessions designed to continue pushing the party’s agenda in a more progressive direction.

A Sanders endorsement of Clinton could still make a big difference, Greg Sargent, The Plum Line, Washington Post, yesterday at 3:24 p.m.

____

Paul Glastris reports that a speech Elizabeth Warren gave that was virtually ignored by the news media could provide a template for an argument about the economy that changes the course of the presidential election. — gs

— Greg Sargent, The Plum Line, Washington Post, yesterday at 6:21 p.m.

Just about exactly a year ago—early last summer—as Clinton was picking up the pace of her campaign appearances and formulating her substantive arguments, she said something that the news media caught onto immediately as really strange.  In an attempt to woo aspiring and current small-business owners, she did her default thing: She adopted a Republican slogan and cliché, this one that government regulation and bureaucracy are the main impediments to starting and expanding small businesses, and are, well, just making the lives of small business owners miserable.

Federal regulations and bureaucracy, see.

It shouldn’t take longer to start a business in America than it does to start one in France, she said, correctly.  And it shouldn’t take longer for a small-business owner to fill out the business’s federal tax forms than it takes Fortune 500 corporations to do so.  Also, correctly.  And as president she will … something.

There were, the news media quickly noted, though, a few problems with this tack.  One was that regulations that apply varyingly to other than a few types of small businesses—those that sell firearms and ammunition, for example—small-business regulations are entirely state and local ones and are not of the sort that the federal government even could address.

Another was that Clinton was relying upon a survey report that provided average times to obtain business licenses in various cities around the world, for companies that would employ a certain number of employees within a numerical, midsize range (or some such), and that cited Paris as the only French cities; showed that the differences in the time it took on average to obtain a business license there and in several American cities was a matter of two or three days, and that only Los Angeles (if I remember correctly) among the American cities had a longer average time than did Paris; and that the all the cities listed had an average of less than two weeks.

Some folks (including me, here at AB) also noted that the actual time it takes to open a small business depends mostly on the type of business, often the ease of obtaining a business loan, purchasing equipment such as that needed to open a restaurant, leasing space, obtaining insurance, and ensuring compliance with, say, local health department and fire ordinances.

And one folk (me, here at AB) pointed out that the relative times it takes to fill out a federal tax form for a business depends far more on whether your business retains Price Waterhouse Coopers to do that, or has in-house CPAs using the latest software for taxes and accounting, or relies upon the sole proprietor to perform that task.

But here’s what I also said: Far, far more important to the ease of starting a business and making a profit in it than regulatory bureaucracy—state and local, much less and federal ones—is overcoming monopolistic practices of, well, monopolies.*

I didn’t just mean Walmart and the like, I explained.  I also meant the monopolistic powers that aren’t obvious to the general public.  Such as wholesale suppliers and shippers.  And such as Visa and Mastercard, which impacts very substantially the profitability of small retailers and franchisers.

Which brought me then, and brings me again, to one of my favorite examples of how the Dems forfeit the political advantage on government regulation by never actually discussing government regulation, in this instance, what’s known as the Durbin Amendment.  It limits the amount that Visa and Mastercard—clearly critical players in commerce now—can charge businesses for processing their customers’ credit card and ATM card transactions.

Talk to any owner of a small retail business—a gas station franchise owner, an independent fast food business owner, an independent discount store, for example—about this issue, as I did back when the Durbin Amendment was being debated in Congress.  See what they say.

The Durbin Amendment was one of the (very) precious few legislative restrictions on monopolies, on anticompetitive business practices, to manage to become law despite intense lobbying of the finance industry or whatever monopolistic industry would be hurt by its enactment.  To my knowledge, though, it was never mentioned in congressional races in 2010 or 2014, or in the presidential or congressional races in 2012. Antitrust issues have been considered too complicated for discussion among the populace.

Which presumably is why the news media never focused on the fact that Bernie Sanders discussed it regularly in his campaign.  And that it resonated with millennials.

And also presumably, it’s why the news media ignored Elizabeth Warren’s speech on Wednesday entirely about the decisive, dramatic effects of the federal government’s aggressive reversal over the last four decades of antirust regulation and the concerted failures of one after another White House administration (including the current one) to enforce the regulation that remains.

Here’s what Glastris wrote in preface to his republishing of the full Warren speech:

Yesterday, straight off her high-profile campaign appearance Monday with Hillary Clinton, Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave a keynote address about industry consolidation in the American economy at a conference at the Capitol put on by New America’s Open Markets program. Though the speech has so far gotten only a modicum of attention—the press being more interested in litigating Donald Trump’s Pocahontas taunts—it has the potential to change the course of the presidential contest. Her speech begins at minute 56:45 in the video below.

Warren is, of course, famous for her attacks on too-big-to-fail banks. But in her address yesterday, entitled “Reigniting Competition in the American Economy,” she extended her critique to the entire economy, noting that, as a result of three decades of weakened federal antitrust regulation, virtually every industrial sector today—from airlines to telecom to agriculture to retail to social media—is under the control of a handful of oligopolistic corporations. This widespread consolidation is “hiding in plain sight all across the American economy,” she said, and “threatens our markets, threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.”

As our readers know, economic consolidation is a subject the Washington Monthly has long been obsessed with—see hereherehereherehereherehereherehere, and here. In our current cover story, Barry Lynn (impresario of yesterday’s event) and Phil Longman argue that antitrust was the true legacy of the original American Populists and a vital, under-appreciated reason for the mass prosperity of mid-20th Century America. But this legacy, and the new Gilded Age economy that has resulted from its abandonment, is not a narrative most Americans have been told (one reason why even the “populist” candidates running president have shied away from it).

What amazed me yesterday was how Warren synthesized the main points of virtually everything we’ve published into a single speech that, while long and wonky, was Bill Clintonesque in its vernacular exposition. You can imagine average Americans all over the country listening, nodding, understanding.

Though many in the press didn’t notice the speech, you can best believe Hillary Clinton’s campaign operatives were paying attention (Trump’s too, I’ll bet). That’s why I think the speech has the possibility of changing the course of the campaign. The candidate who can successfully incorporate the consolidation message into their campaign rhetoric will an huge, perhaps decisive advantage. Hillary has already signaled, in an op-ed she published last fall, that she gets the larger argument. Yesterday, Elizabeth Warren showed her how to run on it. You can read the full prepared text below.

I’m thrilled.  Except for that parenthetical that says “even the “populist” candidates running president have shied away from it, which is inaccurate regarding Bernie Sanders. The link is to an article by Glastris in the November/December 2015 edition of Washington Monthly titled “America’s Forgotten Formula for Economic Equality,” which regarding Sanders concludes based upon an answer to a question by Anderson Cooper at a then-recent televised debate in which Sanders asked the question about how he expected to win the presidency as a democratic socialist failed to mention the issue of antitrust, that Sanders did not campaign on the issue of the demise of antitrust law and enforcement.

But as it happens, I knew that was incorrect.  One of my fondest memories of the Sanders campaign dates back to a detailed first-person report by a journalist covering the Sanders campaign in Iowa last summer, who attended a rally not as journalist but instead from the cheap seats in the midst of the attendees.  I can’t remember the journalist or the publication, and was unable to find it just now in a search.  But I remember this: He sat next to a young woman, blond, cheerleadery-looking, who whenever Sanders said a word or phrase referencing one of his favorite topics, would stand up, thrust her arm up in a punch-the-air motion, and shout the word or phrase.  Cheerleader-like, the reporter said.

One of the words?  Antitrust.  Or, as the young woman said it, “ANTITRUSSSTTT!”

In searching for that article, which as I said I couldn’t find, I did find a slew of references by Sanders to antitrust—the economic and political power of unchecked and ever-growing monopolies—in reports about his rallies.  One, about a rally in Iowa, for example, quoted Sanders as saying that Agribusiness monopoly has reduced the prices human farmers receive for their products well below their market value in a competitive economy.

Other statements made clear the critical reason that Sanders has so focused on the call to break up the big banks: their huge economic and political power.  Including the resultant demise of community banks of the sort that made America great when America was great—for obtaining small-business loans and mortgages, anyway.

So here’s my point: If you click on the link to that Democracy Corps poll, you’ll see what so many people whose heads are buried in the sands of the pre-2015 political era (including the ones who constantly trash me in the comments threads to my posts like my last one) don’t recognize.  All that the Democrats need do in order to win a White House and down-ballot landslide is to campaign on genuinely progressive issues, and genuinely explain them.

Which is why Warren is so valuable to the Dems up and down the ballot.  And why Sanders is, too.

Warren endorsed Clinton last week, and on Tuesday campaigned with her in a speech introducing her, singing her praises, and trashing Donald Trump.  Headline-making stuff.  But not the stuff that will matter most.  When she goes on the road and repeats her Wednesday speech, not her Tuesday one, and then asks that people vote Democratic for the White House on down, it will matter far more.

And that is true also for Sanders. But I don’t expect many politicos over the age of 40 to recognize that.

Glastris’s piece yesterday in titled “Elizabeth Warren’s Consolidation speech Could Change the Election.” Yes.  Exactly. Consolidation.  As in, monopolies. And monopolistic economic practices and political power.

Antitrusssttt!

Surprisingly, apparently in response to the release of the Democracy Corp poll yesterday, hours after suggesting that Clinton was about to begin campaigning as a triangulator because Sanders was refusing to endorse her, and anyway that’s what some Clinton partisans have been urging, someone in the Clinton campaign rescinded that, indirectly.  Presumably, it was someone under the age of 40.

Or someone who reads Angry Bear.  Probably someone who’s under 40 and reads Angry Bear.

Rah-rah! Sis-boom-bah!

*Sentence edited slightly for clarity. 7/2 at 10:43 a.m.

____

UPDATE: Greg Sargent is reporting now:

The latest draft of the Democratic Party platform, which is set to be released as early as this afternoon, will show that Bernie Sanders won far more victories on his signature issues than has been previously thought, according to details provided by a senior Sanders adviser.

The latest version of the platform, which was signed off on recently by a committee made up of representatives for the Sanders and Clinton campaigns and the DNC, has been generally summarized by the DNC and characterized in news reports. Sanders has hailed some of the compromises reached in it, but he has vowed to continue to fight for more of what he wants when the current draft goes to a larger Democratic convention platform committee in Orlando coming weeks, and when it goes to the floor of the convention in Philadelphia in late July.

But the actual language of the latest draft has not yet been released, and it will be released as early as today. It will show a number of new provisions on Wall Street reform, infrastructure spending, and job creation that go beyond the victories that Sanders has already talked about. They suggest Sanders did far better out of this process thus far than has been previously thought. Many of these new provisions are things that Sanders has been fighting for for years.

We already know from the DNC’s public description of the latest draft of the platform that it includes things such as a general commitment to the idea of a $15-per-hour minimum wage; to expanding Social Security; to making universal health care available as a right through expanding Medicare or a public option; and to breaking up too-big-to-fail institutions.

Warren Gunnels, the chief policy adviser to the Sanders campaign, is Sargent’s source.  Gunnels listed six additions to the platform draft:

1) Eliminating conflict of interest at the Federal Reserve by making sure that executives at financial institutions cannot serve on the board of regional Federal Reserve banks or handpick their members.

2) Banning golden parachutes for taking government jobs and cracking down on the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington.

3) Prohibiting Wall Street from picking and choosing which credit agency will rate their product.

4) Empowering the Postal Service to offer basic banking services, which makes such services available to more people throughout the country, including low-income people who lack access to checking accounts.

5) Ending the loophole that allows large profitable corporations to defer taxes on income stashed in offshore tax havens to avoid paying less taxes.

6) Using the revenue from ending that deferral loophole to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs.

Okay, folks.  While being credited to Sanders, this far more likely is a blunt-force impact of Warren, since every one of these points concerns Warren’s particular area of interest: financial industry regulation.

But there are, I believe, clear Sanders hallmarks in there, too: particularly item 4, empowering the Postal Service to offer basic banking services, which makes such services available to more people throughout the country, including low-income people who lack access to checking accounts.

In other words, Warren is the intermediary between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns.  And in exchange for her unbridled campaigning for and with Clinton has combined her own top priorities—precise legislative ones that Warren has the deep expertise to demand and to draft, e.g., items 1 and 3—with one very specific one of Sanders and with more generic ones of his as well, e.g., items 2 and 5.

This will be an unbeatable platform and team.  During the campaign, and in the four years that follow.

Game on.

Update added 7/1 at 3:34 p.m

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (24) | |

Clinton’s figured out how to ensure her victory: Threaten Sanders that if he doesn’t endorse her, pronto, she’ll begin campaigning as a triangulator.

The risk is that [Sanders] will lose his moment because some Clinton partisans already see a more centrist campaign as the best way to win over millions of middle-of-the-road voters who find Trump abhorrent. Sanders has to decide if accelerating his plans to endorse Clinton is now the best way to maximize progressive influence.

Sanders is making his long goodbye count, E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, today

So there it is.  The moment that Sanders endorses Clinton, Clinton will conclude that a more centrist campaign is the best way to win over millions of middle-of-the-road voters who find Trump abhorrent.  Because there are just so very many middle-of-the-road voters who find Trump abhorrent but find the idea of a Medicare-for-all-type healthcare system, a $15/hr. minimum wage, tuition-free public colleges and universities, and compelled reduction in the size and consequent economic and political power of a few mega-banks even more abhorrent.

Throw in sizable tax increases on the wealthy, and the abhorrence of this platform as compared with a Trump presidency shoots off the charts.  At least if you’re a Clinton partisan—Bill Daley, for example, who’s a Democrat only by convenience—and your Wall Street career depended initially upon your family contacts and later upon your Clinton ones.  Or you’ve made your Wall Street fortune the new-fashioned way: private equity.

The very definition of middle-of-the-road, in other words.  Just not the definition of middle-class.  Or working-class.  Unless your work is parlaying your money into ever greater political power in order to ensure a continued inflow of huge amounts of money.

Working-classless, maybe.

In any event we have it now from the horse’s mouth—someone in Clinton’s inner circle.  The risk is that Sanders will lose his moment because some Clinton partisans already see a more centrist campaign as the best way to win over middle-of-the-road voters with millions of dollars who find Trump abhorrent.

Too late, Bernie.  You missed your moment.  You can now withhold not only your endorsement but also your mailing list of three million donors, none of them middle-of-the-road ones.

And some of those three million donors and the many millions more who voted for you, being deemed not as important as the middle-of-the-road voters who hate the idea of a Medicare-for-all-type healthcare system, a $15/hr. minimum wage, tuition-free public colleges and universities, and compelled reduction in the size and consequent economic and political power of a few mega-banks, even more than they hate Trump, may find themselves hating Clinton even more than they hate Trump.  And every bit as much as those millions of middle-of-the-road voters hate a progressive policy platform.  Which is even more than they hate Trump.

What prompted this threat, presumably, was Sanders’ response in an interview with Jake Tapper on Tuesday, when asked what he thought it would take for Clinton to win over his supporters.  “We are trying to say to Secretary Clinton and the Clinton campaign, ‘Make it clear which side you are on,’” he said.  The punditry is up in arms about that.

I myself thought it was a bit harsh, when I read about it on Tuesday.  But Sanders’ instincts were right, apparently.

Tags: , , , , , , Comments (19) | |

Why are so many pundits conflating U.S. blue-collar voters’ concerns that are similar to their British counterparts’ who voted for Brexit with the separate issue of whether the Brexit vote itself will influence U.S. blue-collar voters’ votes in November? These are completely different issues.

Some of our wisest political observers informed us that Brexit would be great news for Donald Trump, because it shows (somehow) that there may be more support here than expected for his nationalist message of restoring American greatness through restrictionist immigration policies and turning the clock back on globalization.

So it’s a bit surprising to see that a new Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll shows that Brexit will not influence the votes of a majority of Americans, and if anything, may benefit Hillary Clinton marginally more than Trump:

“A majority of U.S. voters — 57 percent — say they don’t expect the U.K. verdict will influence their vote in the presidential election. For the roughly quarter who say it will, almost half say it will make them more likely to support Democrat Hillary Clinton, while 35 percent say Republican Donald Trump.”

This is only one poll, so don’t place too much stock in it, but I wanted to highlight it to make a broader point: There is simply no reason to assume that the debate over globalization, which Trump joined with abig speech on trade yesterday, will automatically play in the Donald’s favor. Indeed, Trump is running a massive scam on American workers on many fronts, and the contrast between his positions and those of Hillary Clinton on trade and other economic matters may prove more important in the end than his blustery rhetoric.

Neil Irwin has a good piece this morning on Trump’s big trade speech, in which he pledged to rip up our trade deals with his  large and powerful hands and to bring manufacturing roaring back. As Irwin notes, Trump is right to highlight the very real possibility that trade deals have badly harmed American workers, and that elites have in many respects let those workers down. (Bernie Sanders, too, isrightly calling on Democrats to fully reckon with this phenomenon.) But as Irwin also notes, Trump is selling American workers a highly simplistic, anachronistic tale that doesn’t level with them about the likelihood of reversing trends in globalization and automation

Morning Plum, Greg Sargent, Washington Post, today

I’m certainly no fan of NYT columnist Thomas Friedman—he of “Go for the Grand Bargain, President Obama!” and “Michael Bloomberg for President!” fame.  But his column today is, in my opinion, exactly right.

The first several paragraphs sum up what has become clear to everyone following the news on the Brexit-vote aftermath: that the leaders of the Brexit movement harbored no compunctions about selling it with lies and gross distortions because they didn’t expect their campaign to actually end in, well, Brexit.  And that now that that these dogs have caught the car, they have no idea what to do with it.  They have the car keys but don’t know how to drive the car.

This certainly is why, as Sargent points out, the Brexit vote itself has not helped Donald Trump and instead appears to be helping Clinton slightly.

But the remainder of Friedman’s column addresses the separate issue—and clearly, it is that—of the reasons why so many Britons and Americans and citizens of several other Western countries are susceptible to the type of simple-elixir manipulation that apparently many Britons now regret that they fell for.

Friedman writes:

Because although withdrawing from the E.U. is not the right answer for Britain, the fact that this argument won, albeit with lies, tells you that people are feeling deeply anxious about something. It’s the story of our time: the pace of change in technology, globalization and climate have started to outrun the ability of our political systems to build the social, educational, community, workplace and political innovations needed for some citizens to keep up.

We have globalized trade and manufacturing, and we have introduced robots and artificial intelligence systems, far faster than we have designed the social safety nets, trade surge protectors and educational advancement options that would allow people caught in this transition to have the time, space and tools to thrive. It’s left a lot of people dizzy and dislocated.

At the same time, we have opened borders deliberately — or experienced the influx of illegal migration from failing states at an unprecedented scale — and this too has left some people feeling culturally unanchored, that they are losing their “home” in the deepest sense of that word. The physical reality of immigration, particularly in Europe, has run ahead of not only the host countries’ ability to integrate people but also of the immigrants’ ability to integrate themselves — and both are necessary for social stability.

And these rapid changes are taking place when our politics has never been more gridlocked and unable to respond with just common sense — like governments borrowing money at near zero interest to invest in much­-needed infrastructure that creates jobs and enables us to better exploit these technologies. “Political power in the West has been failing its own test of legitimacy and accountability since 2008 — and in its desperation has chosen to erode it further by unforgivably abdicating responsibility through the use of a referendum on the E.U.,” said Nader Mousavizadeh, who co-­leads the London­-based global consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners.

But we need to understand that “the issue before us is ‘integration’ not ‘immigration,’” Mousavizadeh added. The lived experience in most cities in Europe today, is the fact that “a pluralistic, multiethnic society has grown up here, actually rather peacefully, and it has brought enormous benefits and prosperity. We need to change the focus of the problem — and the solution — from the physical reality of immigration to the political and economic challenge of integration.” Schools, hospitals and public institutions generally will not rise to the challenge of the 21st century “if social integration is failing.”

Which brings me to another current conflation by much of the punditry: that Bernie Sanders has squandered his clout by waiting to endorse Clinton until after the party platform is completed, by which time most of his supporters already will be planning to vote for her, swayed partly by Trump’s simple awfulness and partly by Elizabeth Warren, who has started campaigning with Clinton.

That analysis misses two key points.  First, Sanders’s supporters who are not so thoroughly horrified at the thought of a Trump presidency that they have not yet decided to vote for Clinton care a great deal about the policies they will have some reason to believe will be enacted, or, conversely, blocked, by a Democratic White House teaming with a clearly ascendant and finally-high-profile progressive wing of what hopefully will be a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Second—and a point I’ve made repeatedly in my posts here at AB—there are two types of Trump voters or potential ones, and only one of these will matter to the outcome of the election.  Suffice it to say that the Build the Wall and Ban Muslims voters in the South and Southwest are not the ones who will matter.

The ones who will are Democrats in the Rust Belt who support much of Sanders’s proposed platform and are now considering voting for Trump.  And whose vote could turn on such things as discussions about what political consultants wouldn’t dream of advising their clients to discuss, but that Sanders did discuss during his campaign: hostile labor union policy, including NLRB member appointees; antitrust enforcement; banking regulations that reign in the political power of the financial services industry generally and the mega-banks in particular; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—what it is and does.

Free tuition at public colleges and universities.  Guaranteed access to healthcare.  Guaranteed medical and family leave, for the cost of $1.50 a week in, yes, taxes.  Increased Social Security benefits, in recognition of the demise of defined-benefit pensions.

As so many pundits note, and as Sanders himself says, the Sanders campaign has achieved a great deal in the general outlines of the party platform.  The process has been like pulling teeth, but still ….

But one of the Clinton campaign’s super PACs, I read a day or two ago, is about to flood the internet with ads reminding people that Trump is a misogynist—because apparently there are three or four voters who, although they already know this, will decide against voting for Trump after they’re reminded of it yet again.

And the Clinton campaign itself, I also read, has ads running on TV in some swing states apprising voters that in the ‘70s and ‘80s Clinton pushed some policies that helped children in Washington, DC and in Arkansas, and that as First Lady in the ‘90s she devised and helped push through the CHIPS healthcare insurance plan—not a trivial thing, by any stretch, but also not relevant to voters’ current concerns about this candidate and about the likelihood of major change of the sort so many people who badly want major change want.

Those who continue to cite Clinton’s popular-vote margin over Sanders in support of resistance to this overlook the critical fact that it was, until late in the primary seasons of both parties, broadly believed gospel that an economic populist could not win the general election—and that that, not some broad antipathy toward populist economic policy proposals, tells the tale of that popular-vote differential.  It is, for example, unlikely that a majority of African American and Hispanic voters oppose free public university and college tuition.  And universal, Medicare-like healthcare coverage.  And a $15/hr. minimum wage.  And guaranteed medical and family leave in exchange for a $1.50 weekly tax.  And the reduction of the size and economic and political power of the largest financial institutions.

Polls have not been taken on this, to my knowledge.  That’s too bad.  But in any event, Rust Belt voters considering voting for Trump despite rather than because of his personality and offensiveness would not be among those interviewed in a poll limited to Clinton primary voters.

The real hope for the Clinton campaign lies not just in showing Trump for what he is, not just regarding his temperament, breadth of ignorance, and breathtaking grifterism, and not just the Build the Wall and Ban Muslims policies that everyone already knows about, but also in apprising the pubic of his actual proposed fiscal policies.  And Paul Ryan’s.  And also every bit as much in Clinton’s appearing comfortable with the fact that her campaign’s car was caught by the Sanders dog.

And in seeming fine with allowing that dog’s tail to wag her campaign, to a very large extent.

The fallout from Brexit is already being recognized by U.S. voters as a warning about gullibility and a belief that any dramatic change is better than no or little change.  Turns out that some of the positive changes Britons were promised already have been withdrawn, and the changes that cannot be withdrawn aren’t particularly promising ones.  But as Friedman’s column makes clear, the status quo in the remaining EU is untenable, too, and the EU leaders now recognize that.  So there is a silver lining after all to the Brexit vote.  It’s just not one that helps Britain.  But in addition to helping the remaining EU members, it could help the Clinton campaign.

____

UPDATE: OH. WOW.

Finally, the Clinton campaign is being forced, by Trump’s speech yesterday on trade, to actually educate the public about Trump’s actual fiscal and regulatory policies.  Well, more accurately, it is Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, the source Trump cited more than a dozen times in that speech, who is doing that.  In spades.

Painful though it may be for the Clinton campaign to see someone who has the attention of the news media apprise the public that Trump’s fiscal and regulatory policies are long those of the Republican Party elite and Republican elected officials at every level of government—the very mission of which has been to crush ordinary workers, duly accomplished—it looks like it will have to suffer this indignity.

Which is better than having to do this themselves.  Anything is better than having to do that themselves.  For some reason.

Added 6/29 at 4:49 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (6) | |

A Clinton Blank Check? Or a Sanders Blank Check?

Long-time Republican strategists and campaign consultants privately acknowledge they are so certain of Hillary Clinton’s victory – and so worried about its impact on Senate races and GOP control of the Senate – that they are already considering a controversial tactic that explicitly acknowledges Donald Trump’s defeat.

The tactic, used by congressional Republicans two decades ago, late in the 1996 campaign, involves running television ads that urge voters to elect a Republican Congress so that Clinton won’t have “a blank check” as president.

When will GOP Senate campaigns throw Trump under the bus?, Stuart Rothenberg, Washington Post, today

The obvious Dem Senate and House candidates’ response would be, I would think:

Here’s what the Sanders congressional wing will propose: …  Clinton will sign most of it.  It’s not Clinton who, by voting for a Dem-controlled Congress, you’ll be giving a blank check.

Which is why Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are aggressively campaigning for a Dem Senate and a Dem House.

Enough said.  I would think.  (Well, okay, it would have to be said more subtly than that, since Clinton, after all, will be the presidential nominee.  But that wouldn’t be hard to do.)*

It is, in other words, the specific policy proposals that matter.

*Parenthetical added 6/28 at 8:46 p.m.

Tags: , , , Comments (11) | |