Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Monday, November 21, 2022

POLITICS IN AMERICA - The GOP and "Red Wave" That Wasn't

"Republican leadership on Capitol Hill in flux after midterm resultsPBS NewsHour 11/14/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lawmakers return to Capitol Hill after a drawn-out midterm battle for power.  Democrats kept control in the upper chamber, but a Georgia runoff will determine if they gain a seat or return to a 50-50 Senate.  The balance of power in the House is still pending as several races are still being counted.  All of this has put several key leadership issues in flux for Republicans.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

 

 

"How election deniers fared in their midterm racesPBS NewsHour 11/14/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nearly a week after Election Day, we're getting a clearer picture of the winners and losers.  We're also seeing how the candidates who spread baseless lies about the last presidential election are faring.  Tammy Patrick of the non-partisan Democracy Fund joined Amna Nawaz to discuss the results.

 

 

"Factions of the GOP wrangle for power and influencePBS NewsHour 11/15/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With all but a handful of races decided, next year's Congress will be one of the most evenly divided in the country's history.  Legislative leaders will wrangle with fragile coalitions within and across parties, complicating even basic functions.  But first, leaders will need to convince their colleagues to put them in charge.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

 

 

"Republicans on the state of the party and Trump’s role in itPBS NewsHour 11/15/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Disappointing midterm outcomes for Republicans prompted the party to question its future and its leaders.  Nearly all of former President Trump's hand-picked candidates in key races were defeated, but he may soon announce another run for the White House.  Republican strategist Barrett Marson and Daniel McCarthy joined Laura Barrón-López to discuss the Republican party and Trump's role in it.

 

 

"A historical perspective on Trump’s 2024 presidential bidPBS NewsHour 11/20/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former president Donald Trump launched a third bid for the White House this past week as he faces multiple investigations.  Meanwhile, Democrats are eyeing a generational shift in House leadership as Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek reelection to the role of Speaker.  Beverly Gage, a professor of history and American studies at Yale University, joins Geoff Bennett to discuss.



Thursday, January 13, 2022

POLITIFACT - Trump: Democrats “are trying to ban voter ID”



"Trump says Democrats are trying to 'ban voter ID.' That’s misleading.'” by Amy Sherman, PolitiFact 1/11/2022

As Democrats renew their efforts to pass federal voting rights legislation, former President Donald Trump suggested that Democrats want to erase state laws that require identification in order to cast a ballot.

"They are trying to BAN voter ID and other basic measures that can ensure the sacred integrity of the vote," Trump said Jan. 7 in an email from his Save America PAC.

Trump accused Democrats of trying to "pass a radical federal takeover of state election law."

Trump didn’t name any specific bills, and a spokesperson Liz Harrington told us he was "not referring to any legislation."

But Harrington pointed to the House Democrats’ support for the HEROES Act in May 2020.  It was a $3 trillion proposal by House Democrats that focused on aid to governments and businesses and included stimulus checks.  Tucked into that legislation was a provision that said voters could meet a state’s voter ID requirement by signing a sworn written statement attesting to their identity.  The provision did not apply to certain first-time voters who registered by mail.

The voter ID proposal drew criticism from Republicans at the time, but the focus of discussions was about the main provisions of the bill, which aimed to help Americans get through the pandemic.  The legislation passed the Democratic-led House mostly along party lines but didn’t pass the Senate.

Democrats tried to pass a similar voter ID proposal within an expansive voting rights bill, H.R. 1, but the bill never made it into law.  The latest comprehensive bill that addresses voter ID is the Senate Democrats’ Freedom to Vote ActSenate Republicans blocked the bill last fall.

The Freedom to Vote Act also includes a requirement that states offer a workaround for voters who lack IDs, but it doesn’t broadly "ban" ID requirements.  Rather, it would set an expansive and uniform policy for what counts as an acceptable ID; it wouldn’t have to be one with a photo such as a driver’s license.  It does contain a provision, however, that would prohibit states from requiring voters present an ID in order to get an absentee ballot.

"I don’t know that ban is the right word, but it certainly makes it hard to put in place strict voter identification rules, especially those that make it harder for minority voters to vote," said Rick Hasen, a University of California, Irvine, law professor who specializes in election law.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he wants to create a path forward for federal voting rights legislation by Jan. 17.  To proceed on the Freedom to Vote Act or other voting rights legislation, Democrats would have to persuade Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to support changes to the filibuster, and would need every Democratic vote in the evenly split chamber.

Support for voter ID rules

Thirty-five states have laws asking voters to show some form of identification at the polls, while the remaining states use other identifying information when voters cast ballots, such as a signature, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures

Polls show most people support a voter ID requirement, but voting rights advocates say that these polls may not grasp the issue’s nuances — such as safeguards that are already in place — and that the trend toward stricter ID rules could make it harder for a small group of voters to cast ballots.  This leaves Democrats seeking to stem the tide of increasingly strict rules, without proposing a total ban on voter ID requirements.

How voter ID requirements vary by state



What bothers some voting rights advocates is what’s in the mix of allowable options for acceptable IDs.  In Texas and Tennessee, for example, gun permits are considered valid voter IDs, but student IDs are not.  Critics say this makes it easy for gun owners, a heavily Republican group, to vote but harder for students, a predominantly Democratic group.

Also, voters who lack government-issued IDs tend to be nonwhite, and that includes in places where elections are settled by slim margins such as Georgia.

Republicans who want stricter voter ID rules argue that they are needed to prevent voter fraud.  But voter fraud is rare.  An AP investigation in December found fewer than 475 potential cases in six battleground states in the 2020 election, not nearly enough to affect the outcome.  "Virtually every case was based on an individual acting alone to cast additional ballots," the AP reported.



Monday, November 09, 2020

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Sunday 11/08/2020

"Vice President-elect Harris’ win brings many historic firstsPBS NewsHour 11/08/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Kamala Harris gave her victory speech wearing all white on Saturday night after her glass ceiling-shattering win as Vice President-elect.  Barbara Perry, Director of Presidential Studies and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the historic nature of Harris’ election and the road it took to get here.

 

 

"Dems won the race but the GOP will control the presidencyPBS NewsHour 11/08/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are headed to the White House, Democrats who were hoping to increase their margins in the House and take control of the Senate, failed to strengthen their position in Congress.  Jeff Greenfield joins to discuss the election results and how the Senate runoff in Georgia will determine the future of Biden’s presidency.



VOTE 2020 - Rundown Saturday 11/07/2020


"Lack of evidence make Trump’s legal challenge an uphill battlePBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has vowed to challenge the election results, which have declared Joe Biden as the President-Elect.  The legal challenges began well before Election Day with lawsuits over mail-in voting and which ballots were “legally” cast.  Guy-Uriel Charles, professor of law at Duke University and co-director of the Center of Law, Race and Politics joins to discuss.

 

 

"Biden will take over a deeply divided nation in crisisPBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With news outlets from the Associated Press to Fox News calling the election in favor of Joe Biden on Saturday, President Trump’s camp continued their legal efforts to contest the election results, and many Republican leaders remained silent.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss Trump’s strategy, as well as Kamala Harris’ historic win as the first woman of color to be elected Vice President.

 

 

"Georgia to be ‘center of the American political universe’ during recount, runoff electionPBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nearly 5 million ballots were cast in Georgia, where razor-thin margins in the presidential election mean the state will enter a recount process in the coming weeks, and a January runoff will decide the fate of both the state’s Senate seats.  Georgia Public Broadcasting’s Rickey Bevington joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss why, between now and January’s runoff election, all eyes will be on Georgia.

 

 

"‘More lawsuits are coming:’ Trump’s lawyers layout plans as AP calls race for BidenPBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Shortly after the Associated Press and other TV networks call Pennsylvania and the entire race for Joe Biden, President Trump’s lawyers lay out their plans for a long legal fight over the results.  NewsHour’s Dan Bush joins from Philadelphia to discuss the moment Biden’s victory was called and the Trump campaign's plan of action.



OPINION - Shields and Brooks on Vote 2020

"Shields and Brooks on election results, national divisionsPBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including surprises from a very close presidential election whose result is still unknown, which groups of voters increased their support for President Trump, political challenges for the Democratic Party and what national divisions say about the future of the country.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, hello to both of you.

We don't have a result yet, but the votes are being counted like mad.  We know the results in a lot of states.

We're waiting.

David, what do you make of what we know so far?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, if ever there was a campaign that was going to be a blowout, I thought this was it.  I thought we had an unpopular President that people were ready to get rid of.  I expected a large margin.  And I was wrong.  It's a 2.8 percentage margin nationally.

And so I think what we have learned is that we a very evenly divided nation, two groups of people in non-overlapping universes.  For a time, it seemed — and I think people in both camps thought, well, the people on my team could eventually crush the people on the other team, and my team will get to rule.

I think we now have to face reality.  That's just never going to happen.  The other side is never going to go away.  And we have got to find a way to live with each other.

And so, to me, that's the biggest takeaway of where we are right now.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, divided country.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Divided country, Judy.

But if you look at it in historical perspective, in the last century, only three presidential challengers, nominees have defeated an elected President seeking reelection.  And it's a pretty impressive group, if you think about it.  It was Franklin Roosevelt, it was Ronald Reagan, and it was Bill Clinton, all of whom were at least two-term presidents.  One was a four-term president, and I think history would say successful Presidents.

So, Joe Biden joins a pretty awesome group of people.  He will end up, in my judgment, with a 52-47 popular vote percentage, decisively, and decisively in the Electoral College.

David's right.  It was close.  We are divided.

What surprised me, as much as anything, was the loyalty and the enthusiasm of Donald Trump's constituency.  They turned out in surprisingly impressive numbers.  And Donald Trump, if he got over his hissy fits and sort of the silly actions since the election, could take credit for the Republicans picking up House seats in 2020 and retaining their majority in the Senate.

With the exception of Susan Collins, every other Republican Senate candidate who won, won with Donald Trump.  Susan Collins had a 17-point split in Maine.  That was the only ticket-splitting state in the country.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, I know you have also — you have had a chance to look inside some of these numbers, why voters voted, who voted how, and why people voted the way they did.

I mean, even as we're waiting for the final numbers, what does that tell you about the country, about who we are?

David Brooks:  Well, I mean, the surprises were the gains that Republicans made among Latinos and African-Americans.  Donald Trump had a higher share of the non-white vote than any Republican in 60 years, as he said.

And that was a surprise to me.  He doubled his support among the LGBTQ community.  And so a lot of people are voting by different narratives.  There is a certain narrative that he's a racist and that he's just a force for racism.  I think there's a lot of truth to that narrative, but a lot of people clearly have different narratives in their head.

And so I think people — we should be humble about generalizing across groups of people, especially people we have never met.  And so I think that.

The second thing is that the Republican Party really is the party of the — of people without college degrees, much more so than ever before.  We saw swings of moderates, swings of college-educated suburbanites to the Democratic Party.

And I think the Republican Party can — if they're going to be — feel good about this election, they can see the potential of a future party as a multiracial working-class party.  If they can win support across racial lines among those without college degrees, then that's a very viable party, and they should really focus all their attention on, what can we do for people without college degrees of all groups?

Judy Woodruff:  What about that, Mark?

And, as you look at how people voted, which way they went, what do you see?  What does it tell you about us?

Mark Shields:  Picking up on what David said, you can't make generalizations about people you do know, David.  You have to make generalizations about people you don't know.

(LAUGHTER)

But the point is that David touched on it on the white blue-collar male vote, one out of three voters in the country.

This was the backbone of the Democratic coalition that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and Jack Kennedy.  It was the message of the entire New Deal, Fair Deal, and New Frontier, that government had a responsibility to guarantee jobs, that you weren't the nation of self-reliance and independence completely, especially in the face of a Great Depression.

But the important thing to remember is that the 346 firefighters who walked into the jaws of death and the fires of hell on September 11 to save strangers that never met and gave their lives so doing were white non-college males, for the most part.

Those who volunteer to defend our country, whether it's joining the Marine Corps or the armed forces, and fight and die, it's their families, and they're the families of white, overwhelmingly white, not-college-educated males.

And the Democrats' problem, I think, is one of attitude as much as it is of platform.  I mean, the Democrats, that were once a shot and a beer party have become a Sauvignon blanc party arguing about which wine is more sensitive.

And I really — I really do think this is a problem for Democrats.  And they have to — they have to approach with some humility this very important constituency, which Donald Trump beat them almost 2-1 and beat Joe Biden, I mean, who is really probably the personification of what the New Deal was, in terms of personal style, personal values, and personality.

So, he wasn't beating an elitist Ivy Leaguer.  So I think that's a real problem for Democrats.  And I would add the Hispanics.  I think we have learned painfully, did Democrats, that they're there anything but a monolithic constituency, as most proved by the results in Florida.

Judy Woodruff:  I want to turn you, David, to the president's reaction so far to the results of the lashing out, the accusations of fraud and the rest of it.

How much does all that matter?  I mean, does the delay in announcing — in knowing the result, how much will that matter in the end?

David Brooks:  Yes, well, I thought the President in his press conference last night was awful, horrific, if we weren't used to him, but also wan.  He looked like he was not really fighting; he was just constructing rationalizations for a man who can admit that he can lose at anything.

And I think I have been heartened, I mean, as we heard from William and others, that there is a lot of crazy stuff going around on the Internet, a lot of conspiracy theories, as if the Democrats have this elaborate vote-rigging thing in which they lose the Senate.  Like, it doesn't pass even surface plausibility.

But what has heartened me is that, so far, our system seems to be holding better than many people feared.  A lot of Republicans are happy to see Trump go and are ushering statements or just non-statements and not getting on this train.

And state legislators in places like Pennsylvania have said, we're not getting involved in this.  And the nightmare scenario was that you would get competing slates of electors from places like Pennsylvania.  But that would require the complicity of a lot of the politicians in these states.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And, so far, they don't want to get involved.

So, that's — I think the system is doing way better than we could have feared.

Judy Woodruff:  You do have Lindsey Graham out there echoing what the President is saying.

David Brooks:  Oh, yes, for sure, there are some.  And FOX is divided.  The all-important FOX News seems to be divided.

But, so far, we have not seen violence that much in the streets.  So far, it looks like calmer than many predicted.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, what's your — what is your take on the President and how he is reacting so far and what it says?

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  David, he's younger and more optimistic.

I have to say, I haven't found that many good Germans among the Republicans who are resisting the — just think, Judy.  The President, before the largest audience in the history of humankind, according to him, took an oath to solidly preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I just wish he would reflect on that for 30 seconds.  What he is doing is undermining confidence and trust in our — in each other, in our country, in our ways.

I have been incredibly impressed by the quality of the secretaries of state who have come on, almost overwhelmingly women, Republicans and Democrats, who have explained what they're doing, have done it in a thoughtful and informed and intelligent way.  I have been impressed by the seriousness of purpose that the people have taken in counting.

But I'm waiting for the Republicans.  I'm waiting for Rob Portman of Ohio, who everybody says is such a good guy.  I'm waiting for him to stand up and say, no, Mr.  President, this is wrong.

And we're hearing from the usual suspects.  Lindsey Graham makes Tonto look like an independent spirit when it comes to President Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, here at the end, I mean, you're not worried about the fact that — I mean, we don't know how long it's going to take.  I mean, there may be a call tonight, for all we know, but it is taking days.

Do you have concern that leaves — casts a pall over this somehow?

David Brooks:  Well, for sure.

I mean, there will be a large number of Americans who — if Biden wins, who think Joe Biden is an illegitimate President.  We're not — we shouldn't pretend that we're ending an age of polarization.

I'm just hopeful.  We're having a different sort of polarization.

Donald Trump was a cultural figure.  He was not a policy person, not a government person.  It was always: My tribe is good.  Your tribe is evil.

And so we have had that kind of polarization.  I'm hopeful, if Donald Trump is off the scene, at least there won't be a guy at the top waging a holy war against another identity group every single day.

And so I'm sticking with my blind and completely unrealistic optimism, no matter what's Mark says.

Judy Woodruff:  All right, we're going to let you do that, David Brooks.  And we're all going to wait and see what happens.

David Brooks, Mark Shields, thank you.



VOTE 2020 - Rundown Friday 11/06/2020

"Biden campaign remains confident as Trump escalates false claimsPBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Vice President Joe Biden is leading President Trump in three of the five states yet to be called by the Associated Press.  Still, it’s not clear when vote counting will conclude.  Meanwhile, Trump lashed out at the voting process in a Thursday news briefing, and his campaign is filing lawsuits to challenge results.  Yamiche Alcindor reports and joins John Yang and Judy Woodruff to discuss.

 

 

"When election disinformation is a domestic threatPBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The week has seen a flood of disinformation about the election -- much of it coming from President Trump and his allies.  In addition to false claims about voter fraud, there have been allegations that polling firms conspired to discourage Trump supporters from voting, and social media misinformation remains difficult to control.  William Brangham joins Judy Woodruff to discuss facts vs. falsehoods.

 

 

"The data behind some surprising election resultsPBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What trends and shifts accounted for unexpected election results this week?  Amna Nawaz and Lisa Desjardins take a look at data from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, and more states critical to the outcomes of the presidential race and the balance of power in the House and Senate.



VOTE 2020 - Rundown Thursday 11/05/2020

"The stark difference between Trump’s and Biden’s responses to vote countingPBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The outcome of the presidential race is still unknown, as a handful of states continue counting ballots.  In the meantime, legal challenges to the electoral process and protests are being mounted.  Lisa Desjardins reports, and Yamiche Alcindor and John Yang join Judy Woodruff to discuss President Trump’s “misinformation machine” and how the Biden campaign is responding to Trump’s court action.

 

 

"The status of vote counts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and GeorgiaPBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What’s happening on the ground in the critical states where ballots are still being counted -- and how many votes remain to be totaled?  Judy Woodruff gets updates from Daniel Bush in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, William Brangham in Detroit, Michigan, and Miles O’Brien in Atlanta, Georgia.

 

 

"Key House and Senate races that have yet to be calledPBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Although uncertainty over the presidential race’s outcome is the dominant political story, there are still important congressional contests to settle, as well.  Amna Nawaz and Lisa Desjardins provide an update on electoral votes, key Senate races in Georgia and North Carolina and the shifting balance of power in the House of Representatives.

 

 

"Arizona’s top election official on security of vote-counting processPBS NewsHour 11/05/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Ballots are still being counted in the battleground state of Arizona, although the Associated Press called the state for Joe Biden on Wednesday.  Officials are set to release more vote totals later Thursday evening.  Arizona’s top election official, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss processes and progress, the presence of election observers and the threat of litigation.



VOTE 2020 - Rundown Wednesday 11/04/2020

"Trump lashes out at vote counting as Biden urges patiencePBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With votes still being counted in several states, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election remains unknown.  Former Vice President Joe Biden expressed confidence in his chance of winning but urged Americans to be patient for results.  President Trump, meanwhile, launched unfounded attacks on the integrity of the vote.  Yamiche Alcindor reports and joins Judy Woodruff and John Yang to discuss.

 

 

"Presidential election updates from 5 key statesPBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Several U.S. states were still counting ballots Wednesday, and some of them will decide the outcome of the presidential race.  We get updates from Daniel Bush in Pennsylvania, William Brangham in Michigan, Zac Schultz of PBS Wisconsin, Miles O’Brien in Georgia, and John Ralston of the Nevada Independent about the election status in those five states.

 

 

"How the GOP unexpectedly gained ground in the HousePBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What shifts in the electoral map drove results in the 2020 presidential and congressional races?  Amna Nawaz and Lisa Desjardins review the data behind outcomes for President Trump, former Vice President Joe Biden and party control of the House and Senate.

 

 

"What happened with the suburban voters Democrats were targeting?PBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report and host of the podcast “Politics with Amy Walter” has been analyzing the results of Tuesday’s election.  She joins Judy Woodruff to provide insights and help us understand why voters made the decisions they did.

 

 

"What we know about vote counting and election-related lawsuitsPBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has made it clear he is willing to challenge the results of state vote counts that have not yet been completed.  What legal recourse do candidates have in this situation?  Amna Nawaz talks to Tammy Patrick, an expert on election administration with the Democracy Fund and a former Arizona election official, and Stanford Law School’s Nate Persily of the Healthy Elections Project.

 

 

"Michigan’s secretary of state on the process of counting votesPBS NewsHour 11/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Vice President Joe Biden was declared the winner of Michigan’s electoral votes Wednesday evening by the Associated PressAlthough some votes are still being counted, Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State, said she has been impressed by the efficiency of election workers in delivering accurate results.  Benson joins Judy Woodruff to discuss Michigan’s process and progress.



VOTE 2020 - Rundown Monday 11/02/2020

"What Trump and Biden are telling supporters as campaigns wind downPBS NewsHour 11/02/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As the final hours of the 2020 presidential campaign tick away, nearly 100 million Americans have already cast their ballots -- representing more than two-thirds of all 2016 votes.  Meanwhile, the candidates appealed to voters in swing states, including Pennsylvania, which is shaping up to play a critical role.  Yamiche Alcindor reports and joins Judy Woodruff and Lisa Desjardins to discuss.

 

 

"Why Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs are ‘absolutely critical’ for BidenPBS NewsHour 11/02/2020

Excerpt
SUMMARY:  Pennsylvania could be a critical milestone in any path to victory during this presidential contest.  Daniel Bush is on the ground in the swing state, and he joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs are so important to both candidates, how local election officials are preparing for the vote count and when we might have an understanding of the state’s results.

 

 

"Trump and Biden representatives on final campaign strategiesPBS NewsHour 11/02/2020 Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are making their final pitches to voters in the presidential campaign’s closing hours.  We check in with representatives for each: Erin Perrine, communications director for Trump’s reelection campaign, and Symone Sanders, a senior adviser to Biden.  They join Judy Woodruff to discuss strategies and messages for the lead-up to Election Day.

 

 

"Why some Americans have chosen not to vote this yearPBS NewsHour 11/02/2020 Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In most recent American elections, about four in 10 eligible voters didn’t cast ballots.  Tens of millions are poised to do the same this year.  What are non-voters saying about their rationale for sitting out the election -- one that both candidates and many Americans consider the most important in the country’s modern history?



Monday, July 27, 2020

VOTE 2020 - Virtual Campaigning

"What virtual campaigning means for Trump and BidenPBS NewsHour 7/23/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Both President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have set records with their 2020 campaign fundraising.  But the pandemic has drastically altered how that money is spent, with events moving from in-person to online.  Guy Cecil political director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run, and John Brabender senior advisor for Rick Santorum’s 2016 bid, join Judy Woodruff to discuss.



Monday, June 01, 2020

VOTE 2020 - What This Election Isn't

"The Trailer: This election isn't 1968 or 1992 or 2016" by David Weigel, Washington Post 5/31/2020

In this edition: Why the fire's different this time, what the Libertarian Party has to say about the riots and the virus, and a new poll that shows why the President is an underdog.

Don't worry, it can get worse.  This is The Trailer.

If anyone was celebrating “MAGA night”  on Saturday, they did so far from the White House.  The President coined “MAGA night”  in a Saturday morning tweet, hinting that there might be some response to what he called the “professionally managed so-called 'protesters'  who'd rallied in Lafayette Square on Friday.

There was no response, no red-capped counter-demonstration.  In Washington, as in many cities, people protesting the killing of George Floyd by police gathered, faced off with riot-gear-wearing police and then scattered.  A week that began with the President asking for a criminal probe of an unfriendly TV host ended with him promising to “designate Antifa as a terrorist organization,” though there's no legal way to do so.

That has led to speculation of how the unrest will play for President Trump, with just as many people arguing that it will seal his reelection as arguing that it'll undo him.  Who's right?  It is far too early to say, and none of the easy comparisons hold up in 2020.

It's not 1968.  Most of the quick analysis of the unrest, from politicians and from journalists, has pointed to the election of Richard Nixon to suggest events could help reelect the President.  “He won on a law-and-order platform that appealed implicitly to white anxiety,”  Edward Luce, referring to Nixon, wrote in the Financial Times.  “Richard Nixon won the presidency by promising the country he would restore ‘law and order’ on the streets,” historian Julian Zelizer wrote for CNN.

The comparison fails in two important ways.  First and most obviously, Nixon was not President in 1968.  He was returning from political limbo to challenge, at first, an incumbent Lyndon Johnson and then by fall, Johnson's vice President.  Every summer had seen riots break out in major cities, and every year, the crime rate surged.  When Nixon told the Republican National Convention that “we see cities enveloped in smoke and flame,” he had no political power or responsibility over those cities.

“America is in trouble today not because her people have failed but because her leaders have failed,” Nixon continued.  “What America needs are leaders to match the greatness of her people.”

President Trump has lashed out at mayors and governors, but arguing that all the country's “leaders”  are failing is something an incumbent can't coherently do.  That gets to the second problem: The law-and-order pitch stopped working for Nixon once he was sworn in.  As Walter Shapiro recalled Sunday, polling ahead of the 1970 midterm elections found most voters disapproving of Nixon's crime record.  In the Democrats' official pre-midterm message, Sen. Ed Muskie of Maine leaned in, accusing the President of flailing because he hadn't solved the crime problem.

“For four years, a conservative Republican has been governor of California,”  Muskie said, referring to Ronald Reagan, the era's other major (non-Southern) law-and-order figure.  “Yet there is no more law and order in California today than when he took office.  President Nixon, like President Johnson before him, has taken a firm stand.  A Democratic Congress has passed sweeping legislation.  Yet America is no more orderly or lawful — nor its streets more safe — than was the case two years ago, or four, or six.”

It's not 1992.  Violent crime rates rose throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with Republicans regaining the advantage when voters were asked to consider “law and order.”  Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign tried to turn that around, with the candidate promising not to “make race an excuse for failing to pass judgment about self-destructive behavior” and endorsing “the simple restoration of order.”

The Los Angeles riots, which followed the “not guilty”  verdict for four police officers who had beaten Rodney King, crystallized Clinton's message.  George H.W. Bush was running for President, but the crime rate kept growing.  At one point, when the White House suggested that Democratic welfare policies were at the root of unrest, Clinton mocked them.

“It's just amazing,” Clinton said.  “Republicans have had the White House for 20 of the last 24 years, and they have to go all the way back to the '60s to find somebody to blame.”

Clinton developed a playbook that other center-left politicians would use for years, combining a promise of more policing and tougher sentencing with a promise of smarter social investment.

“We cannot take our country back until we take our neighborhoods back,” Clinton said at a July 1992 rally, flanked by police officers.  “I want to be tough on crime and good for civil rights.  You can't have civil justice without order and safety.”

Once in office, Clinton acted on that, signing popular crime bills and presiding over declining crime rates — and no major social unrest.  At the start, he did so with the support of many black political leaders.  The salience of crime as a Presidential election issue faded, while incarceration rates skyrocketed.  No modern Democrat has responded to this week's unrest with rhetoric like Clinton's.

It's not 2016.  By the time Donald Trump ran for President, violent crime had been on the decline for decades, and influential Republicans had pivoted from tough-on-crime policies to criminal justice and police reform while Democrats began reversing policies like stop-and-frisk and cash bail.  The shift from the attitudes of the 1990s was epitomized by Hillary Clinton, who apologized for a 20-year-old speech in which she called some young black criminals “super-predators.”  What was smart politics for a 1990s campaign was toxic in 2016.  But at the same time, unrest after the killings of black men by police officers and fearmongering about Barack Obama's crime policies fed into a paranoia that danger was increasing and the government was covering it up.

Trump, unencumbered by a political record, pitched himself as both a one-man solution to the crime problem and an alternative to Clinton's record.  “I have a message for all of you: The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon, and I mean very soon, come to an end,”  Trump said at the 2016 RNC.  “Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be restored.”  While his campaign bought ads that portrayed Hillary Clinton as a threat to black voters, Trump himself promised to side with law enforcement over anyone disturbing the peace, and, once in office, he rolled back the Obama administration's reforms.

“The Obama administration and the handcuffing and oppression of police was despicable,” Bob Kroll, the president of Minneapolis's police union, said at a 2019 rally.  “The first thing President Trump did when he took office was turn that around, got rid of the [Eric] Holder-Loretta Lynch regime and decided to start letting the cops do their job, put the handcuffs on the criminals instead of us.”

In 2020, the Trump campaign balanced tough-on-crime rhetoric with the same argument it had made against Clinton: that Trump's Democratic opponent locked up black Americans unfairly.  That was before Minneapolis.

By this weekend, the Trump campaign was accusing Joe Biden's campaign of “financially support[ing] the mayhem that is hurting innocent people,” because some of its staffers had donated to a bail fund for protesters, while the President was urging police to be “tougher.”  At the very same time, Washington's mayor was mocking an “afraid” and “alone” President, pointing out that he claimed local police were not trying to protect the White House, when they very much were.  Richard Nixon won by portraying himself as a unifier against an out-of-control left; Bill Clinton won reelection by carefully navigating the politics of crime and unrest.  There is nothing very careful, yet, about what we've seen from this President.

Monday, October 07, 2019

OPINION - Shields and Ponnuru 10/4/2019

"Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru on Trump, Ukraine and ‘quid pro quo’PBS NewsHour 10/4/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru of The National Review join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including President Trump’s insistence that foreign leaders should investigate the Biden family, how the White House is responding to the subsequent House investigation and the newest fundraising and poll numbers among 2020 Democrats.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And an update.

Late today, the House of Representatives' Oversight Committee formally notified the White House that it is issuing a subpoena for documents related to the impeachment investigation.

Now to the political analysis of Shields and Ponnuru.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru of The National Review.  David Brooks is away.

Hello to both of you.

So, the news just keeps coming.  It's been a week of cascading information about what the President said in a phone call.  And then the President himself, Mark, reinforces this with announcing to the world that he's urging China to look into Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

My bottom-line question for both of you is, is there fire here?  Is there evidence, in your mind, of either a law that's been broken or a violation of the President's oath?  Or is this just smoke?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I think there's more than smoke, Judy.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but there's certainly a strong case to be made that the President openly solicited and sought the intervention and involvement of a foreign government on behalf of his own candidacy, an American Presidential campaign.

And I think, usually, it's the law that's in dispute in these cases of a big argument, rather, about facts.  There's no real argument about facts here.  They're pretty much out in the open.  And the President really opened it up on the driveway on Thursday, when he bid China to come in and come up with information, unflattering, libelous or criminal information, on Joe Biden and his family.

Judy Woodruff:  Ramesh, do you see this as either a law broken or a violation of his oath?

Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review:  We have this tendency to see scandals in terms of hidden events that have to be uncovered.

And so we can't always process when the President says something in public, the way he did with respect to China, when he openly, publicly, with the world watching, said that he wanted China to investigate political opponents, and that his treatment of China in trade negotiations would depend on that.

All of his defenders have been saying, no quid pro quo.  We saw a quid pro quo on national television.

Judy Woodruff:  And, of course, the President said today — made a point of coming out today and saying to the press, no, there's no quid pro quo.  I'm not tying what China does with regard to these investigations to the trade negotiations.

But he did say that yesterday.

Ramesh Ponnuru:  Right.  He said it.

And he — I think he realized that he made a mistake, and he is trying to un-say it.  But it also shows you that he will undercut the defenses that his allies make, which is one reason why a lot of Republicans have been heading for the tall grass.

They don't want to be out there defending the administration with a line that the administration itself might abandon.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, Mark — Mark…

Mark Shields:  No, I think Ramesh's point is salient and right.

There's been a little bit of the old Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark, the story of the dog that, when the race horse was stolen, the dog didn't bark in the night, which suggested that maybe it was somebody inside the household who was responsible for the crime.

The dog didn't bark.  There's no Republicans — usually, Republicans — there's a number of Republicans you can count on to be on television.  There's no such term as indecent exposure to them.  If there's a microphone and a camera, they're there.

All of a sudden as Ramesh puts it, they're in the tall grass.  They don't want to.  And the reason is, Judy, that there is no White House strategy.  I mean, it's pretty obvious.

I mean, the difference between this and Bill Clinton in 1998, when Clinton effectively compartmentalized, I'm going about my business, Donald Trump, as one leading Republican said to me this week, ought to be working on prescription drugs.  He ought to be doing that and holding meetings on it, and this and that and the other thing.

And he's totally obsessed with this.  And he — so if you're going to defend him, you don't know what you're going to be defending an hour from now or certainly tomorrow morning.

Judy Woodruff:  Do you see a — did you see a — do you discern a White House strategy in all of this?

Ramesh Ponnuru:  Well, I think, as often is the case with this administration, there is a strategy for holding the President's base supporters.

And that may well be enough, because you need a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict and remove a President from office.  So if you're looking forward to the endgame, just maintaining your base is enough.

I don't see a strategy right now that is trying to change the minds to of people in the middle.

Judy Woodruff:  Meanwhile, Mark, the congressional Democrats, the House Democrats — and we just mentioned another one — they're asking the White House now for documents.

I was told just a moment ago it's White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, among others.  They're asking for documents as they pursue these investigations.

But they have asked Secretary of State Pompeo.  They have asked Vice President Pence.  This is not — they seem to be moving briskly with this.  What does that tell you?  Is that the smart course?  Should they be taking their time?  What do you make of this?

Mark Shields:  Well, I think events are very much in the saddle.  And I think it's moved a lot faster than anybody anticipated.

If a week ago, you had suggested that the President was going to call for the arrest and trial on treason for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee this week, and go on at a pace, as Ramesh described, as his negotiation on trade with China on the basis of information on the Bidens, you know, it — so I don't think there's any master plan here, Judy.

And the White House's decision to say, we want a vote on the impeachment in the House, that puts a lot of House Republicans in a bad position.  I mean, do you want to vote against an impeachment inquiry and then get overcome by events, I mean, to put you in a position November of 2020 when you wanted — it looks like you wanted the dust everything under the rug, because, given the velocity with which disclosures are being made, that's a very risky vote for a lot of House Republicans?

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Do you want to give the Democrats, the House Democrats, a grade on how they're pursuing this?

Ramesh Ponnuru:  Well, I think there have been some errors.

I think that Chairman Schiff's dissembling really about his contacts or his staff's contacts with the whistle-blower was an unforced error.

But I think the key thing going forward, the Democrats have to internalize that the politically smart thing to do is not to constantly be trying to figure out the politically smart thing to do at each step of the process.

They have got to handle this like a serious inquiry for adults and not be distracted by every moment's polls.

Judy Woodruff:  Do you think they're doing that right now?

Ramesh Ponnuru:  I think that they are trying.

I think that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a very concerted effort to get Democrats to take a step back a little bit, not be gleeful about condemning this administration, but to rather have a posture of seeing where the facts go.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, you have been watching this city for a long time.

Do you think this is something the Democrats can get done?  They have said they want to get it done as quickly as possible.  Can they get something like this, the inquiry finished, move on potentially to an actual impeachment vote in a matter of a few weeks or month?

Mark Shields:  I think probably months, Judy.

But, I mean, just take somebody like Mike Pompeo, secretary of state.  They were talking seriously a week ago about him running for the United States Senate from Kansas.  He was the logical inevitable candidate of the Republicans.  I think he's a lot less so today.

I mean, this is reaching out and touching more and more people.  I do disagree with Ramesh on Nick Schifrin and the Intelligence Committee.  I think it's absolutely natural that the whistle-blower, a professional public employee, would go to the staff.

I mean, he has been surrounded by people who have been hostile.  And I think it's very — it's very frank, and we ought to take notice of the fact that the only reason we're aware of what's happened is because of career public employees.

This is not — these weren't political appointees.  These are people who are nameless, faceless, who get attacked by every cheap shot in a political campaign.

But at Foreign Service and at CIA and the Department of Justice — the I.G. was a Department of Justice 15-year attorney.  So, I mean, I think it's time to give some credit to the people who did put their vow of service above their own self-interest.



Monday, April 03, 2017

LOOKING BACK - Why Trump

"Why the poorest county in West Virginia has faith in Trump" The Guardian (USA) 10/13/2016

Donald Trump was more popular in McDowell County than anywhere else in America during the Republican primaries.  Paul Lewis and Tom Silverstone explore the power of the Republican presidential nominee’s message in the poorest county of West Virginia.

Friday, January 27, 2017

OPINION - A Mean Wind is Blowing

"The Politics of Cowardice" by David Brooks, New York Times 1/27/2017

This is a column directed at high school and college students.  I'm going to try to convey to you how astoundingly different the Republican Party felt when I was your age.

The big guy then was Ronald Reagan.  Temperamentally, though not politically, Reagan was heir to the two Roosevelts.  He inherited a love of audacity from T.R. and optimism and charm from F.D.R.

He had a sunny faith in America's destiny and in America's ability to bend global history toward freedom.  He had a sunny faith in the free market to deliver prosperity to all.  He had a sunny faith in the power of technology to deliver bounty and even protect us from nuclear missiles.

He could be very hard on big government or the Soviet Union, but he generally saw the world as a welcoming place; he looked for the good news in others and saw the arc of history bending toward progress.

When he erred it was often on the utopian side of things, believing that tax cuts could pay for themselves, believing that he and Mikhail Gorbachev could shed history and eliminate all nuclear weapons.

The mood of the party is so different today.  Donald Trump expressed the party's new mood to David Muir of ABC, when asked about his decision to suspend immigration from some Muslim countries: “The world is a mess.  The world is as angry as it gets.  What, you think this is going to cause a little more anger?  The world is an angry place.”

Consider the tenor of Trump's first week in office.  It's all about threat perception.  He has made moves to build a wall against the Mexican threat, to build barriers against the Muslim threat, to end a trade deal with Asia to fight the foreign economic threat, to build black site torture chambers against the terrorist threat.

Trump is on his political honeymoon, which should be a moment of joy and promise.  But he seems to suffer from an angry form of anhedonia, the inability to experience happiness.  Instead of savoring the moment, he's spent the week in a series of nasty squabbles about his ratings and crowd sizes.

If Reagan's dominant emotional note was optimism, Trump's is fear.  If Reagan's optimism was expansive, Trump's fear propels him to close in: Pull in from Asian entanglements through rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Pull in from European entanglements by disparaging NATO.  It's not a cowering, timid fear; it's more a dark, resentful porcupine fear.

We have a word for people who are dominated by fear.  We call them cowards.  Trump was not a coward in the business or campaign worlds.  He could take on enormous debt and had the audacity to appear at televised national debates with no clue what he was talking about.  But as President his is a policy of cowardice.  On every front, he wants to shrink the country into a shell.

J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote, “A man that flies from his fear may find that he has only taken a shortcut to meet it.”

Desperate to be liked, Trump adopts a combative attitude that makes him unlikable.  Terrified of Mexican criminals, he wants to build a wall that will actually lock in more undocumented aliens than it will keep out.  Terrified of Muslim terrorists, he embraces the torture policies guaranteed to mobilize terrorists.  Terrified that American business can't compete with Asian business, he closes off a trade deal that would have boosted annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion, or 0.5 percent of G.D.P.  Terrified of Mexican competition, he considers slapping a 20 percent tariff on Mexican goods, even though U.S. exports to Mexico have increased 97 percent since 2005.

Trump has changed the way the Republican Party sees the world.  Republicans used to have a basic faith in the dynamism and openness of the free market.  Now the party fears openness and competition.

In the summer of 2015, according to a Pew Research Center poll, Republicans said free trade deals had been good for the country by 51 to 39 percent.  By the summer of 2016, Republicans said those deals had been bad for America by 61 percent to 32 percent.

It's not that the deals had changed, or reality.  It was that Donald Trump became the Republican nominee and his dark fearfulness became the party's dark fearfulness.  In this case fear is not a reaction to the world.  It is a way of seeing the world.  It propels your reactions to the world.

As Reagan came to office he faced refugee crises, with suffering families coming in from Cuba, Vietnam and Cambodia.  Filled with optimism and confidence, Reagan vowed, “We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society,” and he delivered on that promise.

Trump faces a refugee crisis from Syria.  And though no Syrian-American has ever committed an act of terrorism on American soil, Trump's response is fear.  Shut them out.

Students, the party didn't used to be this way.  A mean wind is blowing.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

THE RESISTANCE - Plea to Trump Fans

"KEITH OLBERMANN:  IT’S TIME FOR TRUMP TO GO BEFORE HE STARTS A NUCLEAR WAR" by Darragh Roche, Contemptor 1/24/2017

Keith Olbermann

Excerpt

What Trump does not believe, cannot be true.  And that way lies madness,” Olbermann said.  “And lies every evil imaginable and including the end of this country, in a literal sense, perhaps even the end of civilization.”

Olbermann argued that Trump’s ability to convince himself of his own lies showed he was mentally unfit to be President and a danger to the country and its people.  Olbermann appealed to those still supporting Trump to think again, because Trump could start a nuclear war.