Showing posts with label Bill Scher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Scher. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

8 Thoughts on Tuesday, March 15

1. Marco Rubio's loss of his home state by almost 20 points to Donald Trump wasn't just fatal to the Rubio campaign; it also dealt a devastating blow to the idea of Mitt Romney as an influential Republican elder statesman.

2. Tonight was also not a great night for the idea that betting odds are a better predictor than polls. For most of the time (since mid-October, which is the earliest time that website goes back to), betting odds have said Rubio is the most likely Republican nominee. (Full disclosure: Those links go to Election Betting Odds, which was co-created by my friend Maxim Lott.)

3. John Kasich is saying he might go to the Republican convention with more delegates than anyone else. And now, I'm afraid all the remaining Republican candidates might be mentally ill.

4. Losing Ohio could help Trump.

5. Alex Knepper explains why we should expect Trump to stay in the lead:

Presumably the only way to stop Trump at this point would be to look toward a Cruz-Kasich ticket, but the upcoming primaries are mostly friendly territory for Trump — Cruz will win Utah and Kasich might have a shot in Wisconsin, but Trump will likely sweep the Mid-Atlantic states on 4/19 and 4/26 — New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and so forth. Even without Ohio, Trump still has a perfectly viable path to a majority, and nobody else does.
6. I find it interesting that Trump made a point, in his victory speech, to congratulate Rubio on running a "tough" campaign, called him "smart," and said he'll have a great future. I don't think Trump said a word about Jeb Bush when he dropped out on the night of South Carolina.

7. Did anyone predict, before the voting started, that the Republican race would come down to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich? Anyone at all, in the whole world?

8. Since Hillary Clinton seems to have won all 5 primaries and Trump won everything except Kasich's home state, we can now see that this Reason piece was right: "letting Trump speak is not merely the morally correct, philosophically consistent course of action: It's the tactically sound one as well." That article had prescient words the day before the primaries:
When the left stops Trump from speaking, Trump wins. He gets to tell his people that the forces of far-left activism and political correctness are trying to silence him. Implicitly, he is suggesting to his followers that when he becomes president, the tides will turn: see his promise to make it easier to sue newspapers for criticizing him. Trump supporters adore this shtick. Stop giving them ammunition.
As Bill Scher said on Twitter in response to the primary results:
Speculation: The visual of Bernie supporters disrupting Trump rallies offered a dismal picture of a Sanders-Trump general, fueling [Clinton] . . .

Takeaway: spend more time knocking doors for your candidate than protesting the other party's candidate

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Live-blogging the last Democratic debate before the first primary

I'll be live-blogging tonight's Democratic debate — the first debate since the Iowa caucuses revealed how close the race is between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and the only Democratic debate between then and the New Hampshire primary.

Keep reloading this post for more updates. For more live-blogging, check out TPM.

9:03 — This is the first debate with just the two of them. Unlike in previous debates, when each candidate would walk out one by one, this time we see them both walking toward the camera, side by side.

9:05 — Sanders gives an opening statement hitting his familiar notes: the economy is "rigged"; campaign finance is "corrupt."

9:06 — In her opening statement, Clinton says "yes, of course" those things Sanders said are true — but we also need to focus on racism, sexism, and discrimination against LGBT people (implying that Sanders is less concerned about those issues since he didn't mention them in his opening statement).

9:07 — Clinton says she and Sanders "share big progressive goals." But she doesn't "believe in free college." This is an implicit response to Sanders's recent comments that Clinton can't call herself both "progressive" and "moderate." She cleverly argues that "a progressive is someone who makes progress," and Sanders's agenda isn't "achievable."

9:11 — Clinton repeats her usual argument that she'd "improve" Obamacare, but Sanders would scrap the system. Sanders points out that he participated in writing Obamacare — "The idea that I would dismantle health care in America, while we're getting ready to have Medicare for all, is just not accurate."

9:14 — Clinton lists other Democrats who wouldn't be considered "progressive" under Sanders's definition — including Obama, Biden, and Senator Paul Wellstone (who died in 2002) — because Wellstone "voted for DOMA." The point about Wellstone and DOMA seems like an odd one for Clinton to make. The Defense of Marriage Act is now universally reviled among liberals, and Clinton has to worry that Democratic primary voters will be turned off by the fact that she used to be passionately opposed to same-sex marriage, and was pretty late in coming around to the right position.

9:22 — Rachel Maddow asks Sanders about the fact that he's not really a Democrat. Sanders proudly declares: "I am the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress." Maddow says Sanders was a spoiler in a race in the '80s that was won by a Republican, but Sanders points out that he only lost that race by a few points — "the Democrat was the spoiler!"

9:25 — Sanders says "almost the entire establishment" is supporting Clinton, while millions of "people" have supported Sanders by giving him contributions averaging $27. Clinton says Sanders is the only person who'd describe Clinton as "exemplifying the establishment" when she's "a woman running to be the first woman president."

9:28 — Clinton says "it's time" to end Sanders's "artful smear" and "innuendo" about her donations and speaking fees from Wall Street. "If you've got something to say, say it, directly!" The audience gets riled up, going "Ooooh!" when Clinton says the word "smear." [VIDEO.]

9:31 — Clinton says Sanders voted for financial deregulation in 2000 which led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Apparently she realized that she's seemed too defensive on this issue and she needed to go on the offensive.

9:40 — Clinton is asked again about her Wall Street speaking fees. She says Wall Street clearly knows where she stands since Wall Street has been spending millions of dollars against her primary campaign, at which point Sanders rolls his eyes.

9:42 — Sanders goes on a diatribe against Wall Street. "Kid gets caught with marijuana — that kid gets sent to jail. A Wall Street executive destroys the entire economy — $5 billion settlement, no criminal record."

9:43 — Clinton tries to move to Sanders's left by saying she'd "take us further" in taking action against "corporate power."

9:46 — Chuck Todd asks Clinton if she's release all the transcripts of all her paid speeches. Clinton seems slightly little taken aback by that sweeping request, which she quickly brushes off — "I don't know, I'll look into it" — before using the rest of her time to get back to her talking points.

Bill Scher responds to the question about transcripts of Clinton's speeches:

Pro-tip: conspiracies don't have transcripts
9:49 — Sanders: "The business model of Wall Street is fraud."

9:57 — Clinton says it's "off the table" to deploy ground troops against ISIL. She agrees with President Obama's current strategy except that she'd give "more support for the people on the ground."

9:59 — Sanders "agree[s] with much" of what Clinton said about ISIL. In fact, he doesn't suggest that there's any difference between them on that. Instead, he switches to reminding us that he was against the Iraq war and Clinton voted for it.

10:00 — Todd asks Sanders how long he'd leave the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan which Obama will leave for him. He doesn't specifically answer the question. He goes back to talking about ISIL, saying we need "Muslim troops on the ground" to fight ISIL; American ground troops would be targets.

10:02 — Clinton gets into a lot more details of what's going on in Afghanistan. She also doesn't give a specific answer about how long she'd leave our troops there, but her answer on Afghanistan sounds much more impressive than Sanders's.

10:03 — Todd asks Sanders why foreign policy doesn't seem to be one of his big issues, and why he hasn't given a major foreign-policy speech. "I gave a speech about democratic socialism and foreign policy. Maybe I shouldn't have combined the two of them into the same speech!" Only the former part got any attention.

10:06 — Clinton brings up a couple of Sanders's past statements on foreign policy and says they're very questionable. Clinton says it's "not acceptable" for Sanders to say "I'll get to that when I can." Sanders: "I fully concede that Secretary Clinton, who was Secretary of State for 4 years, has more experience . . . on foreign affairs." But Sanders again reminds us . . . she voted for the Iraq war.

10:10 — Sanders bring up Clinton's dispute with Obama from 2008 about whether to "talk to our enemies." Clinton says she's going to "correct the record": the question in 2008 was about whether to meet with them "without conditions." It's unusual to see Clinton (implicitly) criticizing Obama like that now, 8 years later. Clinton points out that the Obama administration talked with Iran only after satisfying various conditions — effectively saying "Told ya!" to Obama.

10:14 — Clinton refers to the Iran deal with an incomprehensible string of jargon: "That's an enforcement consequence action-for-action follow-on."

10:18 — Sanders reels off his accomplishments on veterans' issues. This seems like an implicit comeback to Clinton's line that only she can get things done.

Bill Scher makes a good point:
Everyone who says Elizabeth Warren would be winning this primary, ask yourself how she'd be doing with these foreign policy questions
10:25 — Sanders is asked about the results in Iowa, and Sanders emphasizes that he got 20 delegates to Clinton's 22 — and they need about 2,500 to get the nomination. "This is not the biggest deal in the world." He does point out that some of the results were based on coin flips, but he hastens to add: "I love and respect the caucus process in Iowa. And I don't have to say it, because they've already voted! And I love the New Hampshire primary, because they haven't voted yet!"

10:27 — In response to a question for Sanders about how he'd do in the general election, he cites some general-election polls that have him doing much better than Clinton against Donald Trump.

10:29 — Clinton tells Sanders she's "thrilled by the numbers of people . . . who are coming to support your campaign," which is a little hard to believe. As for the general election, Clinton says: "I've been vetted. There's hardly anything you don't know about me."

10:33 — Todd asks Clinton if she's "100% confident that nothing is going to come" of the FBI investigation into her email practices. Clinton says yes, "I'm 100% confident! . . . This just beggars the imagination!"

10:34 — Todd asks Sanders if he still feels the same way about Clinton's emails as he did in the first debate, when he famously said: "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" Sanders says: "I'm feeling exactly how I felt at the first debate. There's a process underway — I will not politicize it."

10:41 — Clinton is asked if she still supports the death penalty. She says she does, but she has much more confidence in it at the federal level than the state level. As an example, she says she's glad that Timothy McVeigh was executed for blowing up 168 people, "including 19 children in a day-care center."

10:43 — Sanders is firmly against the death penalty: "There is so much killing out there. I don't believe that government should be part of the killing. . . . We should lock them up and throw away the key."

10:47 — Todd points out that Clinton has taken stands against trade agreements (NAFTA and the TPP) while campaigning in 2016 and 2008, but has supported them at other times. And Todd points out that Sanders has "never supported a trade deal" in the decades he's been in Congress! Sanders says he believes in "trade" — but not "free trade."

10:56 — Todd asks Clinton which of three issues she'd prioritize — immigration, guns, or climate change. "History shows, whichever you pick first, you have the best shot of getting." Clinton simply rejects that premise. Sanders says Todd missed the most important issue: campaign finance reform.

11:00 — Maddow asks Clinton if she'd eliminate any government agencies — or create any new ones. Clinton says no, she'd just make the existing ones work better.

11:02 — Todd asks Clinton if she'd pick Sanders as her running mate — which is a dumb question, since she's obviously not going to answer it. But if she is the nominee, "the first person" she'll call "will be Senator Sanders."

11:04 — In her closing statement, Clinton urges voters to use their "head" and their "heart." "We have a lot of work that can only come because your heart is moved."

11:06 — Sanders, in his closing statement: "I'm running for president because I believe it is just too late for establishment politics and establishment economics. We need a revolution."

Saturday, November 10, 2012

How can Republicans win after 2012?

Self-proclaimed "liberal Democrat" Bill Scher has some advice for Republicans on how to win in the future. (And yes, it's genuinely good advice, not sarcastic or insincere!)

Condoleezza Rice says:

When you look at the composition of the electorate, clearly we are losing important segments of that electorate. And what we have to do is to appeal to those people not as identity groups, but understanding that if you get the identity issues out of the way, then you can appeal to Americans on the broader issues that all Americans share concerns for.


Alex Knepper (a libertarian Republican) agrees and elaborates:
That’s exactly right. The social issues serve as a barrier to persuasion. New voters — young people, immigrants — tend to identify with one of the parties on a ‘big picture’ basis — not by going down a checklist of issues and comparing the party platforms. The social issues are not only the easiest for the uninitiated to understand, but they have the most emotional impact. It’s one thing to argue over the merits of adjusting the capital gains tax rate — most people will submit that it’s an issue about which reasonable people can civilly disagree. But when Hispanics hear that the Republican presidential nominee has openly advocated making life so miserable for illegal immigrants that they won’t even want to live here anymore (that’s what “self-deportation” means, people), then an enormous wall has been created. When you’ve lost the trust of a minority group, they won’t listen to a word you have to say about Medicare, tax reform, or deficit-reduction. There’s nothing inherent about brown skin that makes a person hostile toward capitalism. But if people with brown skin think that the party of the free market hates them, then they’ll run into the arms of the party of statism. And why not? People need to feel assured that you view them with dignity and respect, not with contempt and loathing. There’s nothing that should be surprising about that.

We don’t need to win the Hispanic vote — we just need to increase our share back to levels more like George W. Bush’s. Changing our policies and tone toward immigration issues is only a first step to achieving that — not only because it is practical, but because it is the right thing to do. Once that issue is out of the way, then we can go about the vital task of reaching out to Hispanic voters on the basis of the timeless American values of upward mobility, economic freedom, and individual liberty.
I think a lot of people go along with Democratic economic policies largely because they've already decided to be Democrats based on social issues. As Knepper points out, social issues are relatively easy to have clear, unwavering views about. Given the choice between memorizing and repeating a few slogans to sum up the mainstream Democratic positions on economic issues, or reaching your own conclusions on those issues by soberly weighing the smartest arguments on all sides, many people just don't have time for the latter, no matter how much more intellectually honest it would be.

Yet people would rather feel a sense of clarity than uncertainty on the major issues of the day. So, when they don't have time to master those issues, they develop shortcuts, like saying their side cares, and the other side doesn't care — or, only cares about the wrong people. That approach is simplistic but powerful enough to be able to explain almost any political divide. Given that Republicans are the party of social and economic conservatism, and that their social conservatism is blatantly uncaring, socially liberal voters have a readily available shortcut for taking a stand on Republican economic policies: just as Republicans' social policies show that they don't care about women, blacks, gays, immigrants, etc., their economic policies show that they don't care about the middle class (or the poor), and that they only care about the rich (or corporations).

It's not just that many voters are socially liberal and prioritize social issues, causing Republicans to lose a portion of the electorate every Election Day based on those issues. Of course, that's true, but Republicans have a broader problem: their positions on social issues are turning off many voters from the very idea of agreeing with them on any issue. Conservatives like to bring up "the law of unintended consequences." Well, how many professional Republicans are willing to face the fact that their party's retrograde positions on social issues have been inadvertently holding economic conservatism hostage?

Monday, May 28, 2012

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Matt Lewis Newt-ly calls out Bill Sher for failing to understand the appeal of Newt Gingrich.

Matt Lewis talks like Newt Gingrich while calling out Bill Sher for failing to understand Gingrich's appeal:




Here's the post Matt Lewis is referring to: "How to talk like Newt (in 7 easy steps)."

I noticed that in the last debate, Gingrich would qualify all his statements with "explicitly." By my count from searching the transcript, he used that word 4 times (and no one else used it at all). It's a way to sound intellectual without necessarily saying anything.