ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [405] -- End Of The Silly Season

[ Posted Friday, August 26th, 2016 – 17:13 PDT ]

It's still only August, but already the predictions that this would be an exceedingly banal presidential election campaign look like they've already come true. This week's campaign news might be summed up as an elementary school playground shouting match: "You're a bigot!" "No, you're a bigot!" Sigh. We've still got over two months of this to get through, folks. And nobody sane expects things are going to get any better any time soon -- quite the opposite, in fact.

Now, normally August is the official "Silly Season" of politics, where reporters get so bored with the lack of actual political news (Congress having larked off on vacation for the entire month) that they write speculative pieces pondering ideas only one step removed from conspiracy theories. Like whether Donald Trump's real Machiavellian plan all along has been to start up his own alt-right media empire after he loses to Hillary Clinton. That's pretty much par for the August course. Over on the right, Rudy Giuliani is conspiracy-mongering the "Hillary is dangerously ill" storyline, which is also something you'd expect in August. Thankfully, we've only got less than a week to go until September, when pundits will all begin obsessing over the upcoming first presidential debate. So there's that to look forward to.

Speaking of the debate preparation, word is that Hillary Clinton hasn't yet decided who will "play Trump" in her debate prep sessions. Possible names floated: Joe Biden, Terry McAuliffe, Ed Rendell, and Alan Dershowitz. Then there are a few who probably could achieve the proper Trumpian levels of spontaneity: James Carville and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. Our favorite suggestion, however, has to be Senator Al Franken. Franken has a lightning-quick wit and would likely be an incredibly caustic Trump stand-in, so we have to say he'd be one of the better candidates for the job.

Donald Trump is (mostly, so far) sticking to the "read the damn speech as it's written" strategy his new campaign managers have imposed upon him, although he did emerge from the bunker of Fox News to give Anderson Cooper an interview this week -- the first non-Fox interview he seems to have given all month long. It didn't go real well, mostly because nobody has been able to figure out what Trump's position on immigration is at any particular moment. And that includes Trump himself, who was all over the map this week on what to do about the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. Trump's always been a big fan of just rounding them all up and deporting them, which he has espoused too many times to count during his campaign. Now, apparently, someone told him that he actually needs a few minority voters to have any prayer of winning, so he's "softening" (his word) on the deportation force he's previously promised. Or maybe he isn't. Maybe they'll have to leave, maybe they won't -- it all depends on what day Trump is asked the question, because his answers keep radically flip-flopping. His campaign had earlier scheduled a big speech on the issue where he'd roll out his detailed deportation plans, but the speech had to be cancelled (assumably after the speechwriters had a nervous breakdown trying to figure out Trump's actual position). Or maybe it's a high-level fight within the campaign between the hardliners and those who have the ability to read a poll, who knows?

Trump is also finally trying to put together some semblance of a ground game, and he's surrounding himself with the best people, as promised. In a key Colorado district, this means a 12-year-old is running Trump's campaign effort. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried, folks.

But back to Trump's newfound appreciation of minorities. After continuously bragging during the primaries about his poll numbers (including claims to be "winning" among Latinos and African-Americans), Trump finally seems to have realized that he is not, in fact, convincing many people of color to support him. So he's got a new message to them -- one he's delivering in front of lily-white crowds in multiple states. Trump's message? "Your life sucks, so vote for me because I couldn't possibly be any worse!" No, really -- that's his idea of outreach. That's not an actual quote, though, merely a summary. Here's an actual quote from one of his rallies this week:

Look at how much African-American communities are suffering from Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump? What do you have to lose? You live in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the Hell do you have to lose?

Later, he promised that if he becomes president, no black children would be shot while walking down the street -- a pretty sweeping promise! But what Trump doesn't seem to realize is that not every single black or brown American lives in an inner city, and furthermore that there actually are black and brown people with good jobs and living situations. Trump doesn't seem worried about his minority appeal, though, stating boldly that when he is re-elected in 2020, he'll get "95 percent" of the African-American vote. When asked about this tidbit of insanity, Trump running mate Mike Pence burst out laughing, on camera.

All of that was just the beginning of Trump's week of minority outreach, mind you. By the end of the week, he was telling anyone who would listen that Hillary Clinton was a bigot. Anderson Cooper even helpfully defined the term to Trump ("Bigotry is having hatred towards a particular group"), but Trump refused to change his mind, when Cooper directly asked whether he still thought she was bigoted:

Oh, she is. Of course she is. Her policies. They're her policies she comes out with the policies and others that believe like she does also but she came out with policies over the years.... This is over the years. Long time. She's totally bigoted, there's no question about that.

This was all an effort to pre-empt Hillary Clinton's speech this week, where she laid out in painful detail why Donald Trump is, in fact, a bigot (more on this in a moment). But if anyone is wondering why the audiences at Trump's rallies are so startlingly non-minority in nature, perhaps it's because the campaign staff seem to be going out of their way to assure this homogeneity. A previous supporter of Trump (who now says he can't bring himself to vote for the man) wrote a first-person account for the Washington Post about how he was kicked out of a Trump rally:

I still don't know why I was asked to leave. But I think it has something to do with my race. My mother is white and my father is Indian. When [the campaign security person] saw me, I wonder whether he noticed that I look different from most Trump supporters. I wonder whether he assumed that I couldn't possibly support Trump because of how I look.

So, in other words, that minority outreach thingie seems to be going swimmingly! Maybe 95 percent of all minorities will be voting for Trump this year -- at least in Donald Trump's fevered imagination.

Things have gotten so bad that it's hard for other racially-insensitive Republicans to even get attention. Maine's governor Paul LePage gave it the old college try this week, when he asserted that nine out of ten drug dealers arrested in his state were people of color, which he knew because he kept a binder full of all their mug shots. He then doubled down -- when asked whether this might be because of racial profiling, LePage stated:

Look, a bad guy is a bad guy, I don't care what color it is. When you go to war, if you know the enemy, the enemy dresses in red and you dress in blue, you shoot at red, don't you? You shoot at the enemy. You try to identify the enemy. And the enemy right now, the overwhelming majority right now coming in are people of color or people of Hispanic origin. I can't help that. I just can't help it. Those are the facts.

Good thing he doesn't have to worry about minority outreach up there (Maine is 95 percent white). Maine's governor also -- for good measure -- left a profanity-laden tirade on a lawmaker's voice mail, just in case that whole "black/brown people are the enemy" thing wasn't enough to get him in the news. A local paper even wrote an editorial apologizing to the rest of the country for him, entitled: "Message To America: Sorry We Gave You LePage."

LePage wasn't the only Republican caught on tape cursing like a sailor, though. A guy who lost two elections in Maryland moved to Florida and is running for a House district miles from where he actually lives. This serial campaigner was outraged that a journalist exposed the fact that virtually all of his donations have come from outside his district as well, so he dropped multiple F-bombs even though he knew full well he was being recorded. Is this a new trend, due to Donald Trump's candidacy? It's too soon to tell, really.

But there was actually some good news out of Maine this week, as President Obama created a new National Monument in the north woods. We heartily applaud such conservation efforts, no less because we may have actually been to this land before (it'd be impossible to tell without a really good topo map), when we visited Baxter State Park, home of the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail and the highest point in Maine, Mount Katahdin. The newly-created Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument abuts Baxter State Park, and was President Obama's 100th birthday present to the National Park Service. So, like we said, not all the news out of Maine this week was bad.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Hillary Clinton gave us all a preview of what the presidential debates are going to be like this week, with a speech given at a community college in Reno, Nevada. The entire speech was a point-by-point takedown of Donald Trump's character and unfitness for office. This week's talking points section is comprised of excerpts from this speech, which truly pulled no punches. For taking on Trump so directly and forcefully, Hillary Clinton is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

Donald Trump has spent the last two weeks desperately trying to convince white suburbanites that he isn't as scary and bigoted as they think. His floundering around in weak attempts at minority outreach were not really designed to appeal to minorities (since that boat has largely sailed already), but instead they were designed to soften his image among the demographic groups that normally vote Republican pretty reliably, but this year have been recoiling from Trump in horror.

Clinton's speech was a necessary reminder that Trump is precisely as scary and bigoted as everyone thinks. All that Clinton really needed to do, in fact, was to stand up and read off some of the hundreds of things Donald Trump has said about how he sees (and how he would treat) minorities in America. His own words condemn him -- nothing else is even really necessary.

Clinton's speech went even further, however. The broad theme she's been campaigning on recently has been: "What you see is what you get with Donald Trump." There will be no pivot, because there simply is nothing to pivot to. He is who he is, as even he will cheerfully admit. All Clinton did was to remind everyone of who Donald Trump is, as opposed to who he's now desperately pretending to be.

Trump has had a message for minorities which has been pretty consistent throughout his campaign. Minorities, to him and his supporters, are "The Other." They are not us, they are outsiders to be feared, investigated, arrested, jailed, deported, and barred from entry to the United States. That's his minority message in a nutshell, and no amount of "outreach" now is going to change it.

Hillary Clinton just reminded everyone of this fact. She did so in great detail, giving us a preview of some of the issues she'll be hitting Trump on during the upcoming debates. She is signaling that she will not shy away from taking Trump on directly, which is a relief. Trump is so vulnerable on so many issues that even Clinton's speech had to be confined only to his bigotry. Even so, there's so much to choose from that Clinton had the luxury of only providing the low points of Trump's campaign -- plenty of other offensive things he has said or done weren't even included.

For taking Trump on in such a bold fashion, Hillary Clinton easily wins this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[It is our standing policy not to provide contact information for political campaign websites, so you'll have to look Hillary Clinton up yourself to let her know you appreciate her efforts this week.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We actually don't have a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to hand out. We had two possibilities, but both of them are, at best, only "guilt by association with family members" scandals, which don't really qualify.

The first of these was the exposure of yet another drug company using profiteering off of sick people as their business model. The price of EpiPens was hiked hundreds of dollars, just because the company thought it could get away with it. This company is led by Heather Bresch, whose multi-million-dollar salary also exploded during the same time period. The woman in question is the daughter of West Virginia's Senator Joe Manchin, who has been trying to lay low on the issue while many of his fellow senators are calling for an investigation. But Manchin himself bears no real blame for having a money-grubbing daughter, so no award is possible here.

The second was a little bit more relevant to the politician. A House member from California, Ami Bera, got over $200,000 in campaign donations over two separate election cycles that were funneled to him by his father, Babulal Bera. When confronted by the evidence that he had financed the illegal campaign donation scheme, Babulal admitted it. He's now going to serve a year and a day in jail for doing so. But his son apparently had nothing to do with the scheme, so even having his father convicted of campaign money-laundering for his own benefit doesn't quite rise to the level of earning a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Guilt by association, even with a close family member, doesn't really qualify.

So we're not giving a MDDOTW award out this week, unless we missed someone obvious you'd like to nominate for the award (down in the comments, as usual).

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 405 (8/26/16)

What follows are seven excerpts from Hillary Clinton's Reno speech on Donald Trump, presented in the order they appeared in the speech. Clinton has a pretty easy job, as we've mentioned, because attacking Trump is so easy -- just review his record of statements and actions. Trump's response was, predictably, to play the childish game of: "I know you are but what am I?" Or, perhaps, the more-adult version: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

As the presidential campaign moves into its final two months, more and more American voters are starting to pay close attention. Sadly, for many of them, this is the first time they've really done so. What this means is that everything that has happened so far has flown under the radar of millions of voters. Hillary Clinton needs to remind these folks of what Trump has already said and done as a candidate, every chance she gets. Most people have already formed an opinion about Trump, but not everyone. For those still open to persuasion (one way or the other), reviewing what has gone before is absolutely necessary. Trump's new campaign team is trying to reposition Trump as a friend and champion of minority rights in America. No, don't laugh -- that's exactly what they're now attempting. Clinton can't just sit back and hope everyone knows how laughable this is, she's got to make that case herself, repeatedly. The speech in Reno did an admirable job of doing precisely this, which is why we're turning over the whole talking points section to extended excerpts from this speech. No introductions are necessary for these talking points, we should also add -- Clinton's words alone are enough.

 

1
   Prejudice and paranoia

From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia. He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party. His disregard for the values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.

In just this past week, under the guise of "outreach" to African-Americans, Trump has stood up in front of largely white audiences and described black communities in such insulting and ignorant terms:

"Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen." Right now," he said, "you walk down the street and get shot."

 

2
   Not qualified for the job

Now, Trump's lack of knowledge or experience or solutions would be bad enough. But what he's doing here is more sinister. Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters. It's a disturbing preview of what kind of president he'd be.

And that's what I want to make clear today: A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military.

 

3
   The pattern continued

Well, throughout his career and this campaign, Donald Trump has shown us exactly who he is. We should believe him.

When Trump was getting his start in business, he was sued by the Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to black and Latino tenants. Their applications would be marked with a "C" -- "C" for "colored" -- and then rejected. Three years later, the Justice Department took Trump back to court because he hadn't changed.

And the pattern continued through the decades. State regulators fined one of Trump's casinos for repeatedly removing black dealers from the floor. No wonder the turn-over rate for his minority employees was way above average.

And let's not forget Trump first gained political prominence leading the charge for the so-called "Birthers." He promoted the racist lie that President Obama is not really an American citizen – part of a sustained effort to delegitimize America's first black president.

 

4
   Textbook definition

We all remember when Trump said a distinguished federal judge born in Indiana couldn't be trusted to do his job because, quote, "He's a Mexican."

Think about that.

The man who today is the standard-bearer of the Republican Party said a federal judge -- who by the way had a distinguished record as U.S. attorney, had to go in hiding because Mexican drug gangs were after him, who has Mexican heritage but just like me was born in this country -- is somehow incapable of doing his job solely because of his heritage. Even the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, described that -- and I quote -- as "the textbook definition of a racist comment."

To this day, Trump has never apologized to Judge Curiel.

 

5
   Dream on, Donald

Through it all, he has continued pushing discredited conspiracy theories with racist undertones. You remember he said that thousands of American Muslims in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 attacks. They didn't.

He suggested that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Now perhaps in Trump's mind, because Mr. Cruz was a Cuban immigrant, he must have had something to do with it. And there is absolutely, of course, no evidence of that.

Just recently, Trump claimed that President Obama founded ISIS. And he has repeated that over and over again.

His latest paranoid fever dream is about my health. All I can say is, Donald, dream on. This is what happens when you treat the National Enquirer like Gospel.

 

6
   How would they prove it?

And he'd ban Muslims around the world, billions of them, from entering our country just because of their religion. Think about that for a minute. How would it actually work? So people landing in U.S. airports would line up to get their passports stamped, just like they do now. But in Trump's America, when they step up to the counter, the immigration officer would ask every single person, "What is your religion?"

And then what? What if someone says, "I'm a Christian," but the agent doesn't believe him? Do they have to prove it? How would they do that?

Really, ever since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, America has distinguished itself as a haven for people fleeing religious persecution, believing in religious freedom and religious liberty. Under Donald Trump, America would distinguish itself as the only country in the world to impose a religious test at the border.

Come to think of it, there actually may be one other place that does that. The so-called Islamic State. The territory that ISIS controls. What a would be a cruel irony that someone running for president would equate us with them.

 

7
   More cowbell!

Trump likes to say he only hires the "best people." But he's had to fire so many campaign managers it's like an episode from The Apprentice. The latest shake-up was designed to -- quote -- "Let Trump be Trump." To do that, he hired Stephen Bannon, the head of a right-wing website called Breitbart.com, as campaign CEO.

To give you a flavor of his work, here are a few headlines they've published:

"Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy."

"Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?"

"Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement's Human Shield"

"Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage."

That one came shortly after the Charleston massacre, when Democrats and Republicans alike were doing everything they could to heal racial divides. Breitbart tried to enflame them further.

Just imagine -- Donald Trump reading that and thinking: "This is what I need more of in my campaign."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

94 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [405] -- End Of The Silly Season”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    You raise a good point Chris: the Hillary speech this week was focused on the alt-right fringiness of Trump's campaign. There are other topics she could do entire speeches on, like Trump's horrible business record -- that's worth a speech of its own and could be equally devastating.

    Looking forward to the debates -- and yeah, Al Frankin would be an excellent sparring partner, both because he's quick-witted and because he probably could give her advice about HOW to handle surprises after he delivers them.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "it all depends on what day Trump is asked the question, because his answers keep radically flip-flopping."

    That conjures an image of one of those orange clown fishes out of water, but do fish get dangerously obese like Trump? They probably don't recognize KFC & McD's as food.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have a question.

    I just heard that Democrats have never won the white, college-educated vote in a presidential election.

    Is that correct? And, if so, why??

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now that the Orange One has pivoted to being in favor of amnesty, I guess the media can stop pretending that he's not a politician. Politics is really the only explanation for his strategy of lying to his thugchumps to get through the primaries and then go full Rmoney RINO after he's nominated.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "if so, why?"

    Kaseeno nation.

    BTW - I believe that The One Who Watches Words does not like the one that I've misspelled.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm afraid I'm a little slow on the uptake ... ?

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 Trump has the best words, but he changes the words that he says a lot. Very dishonest. Disgusting!

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Some people think they'll have to pay The Death Tax someday.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unbelievable!

    BTW, did you know that Tim Geithner is a big proponent of the Estate Tax.

    It's just one think a lot of people don't know about him ...

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    one thing

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Some people must think they are much, much richer than they actually are ... or something.

  12. [12] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    They imagine that they might be the equivalent of lotto winners some day while the billionaires suck them dry. I'm using ca sin o nation and the death tax as sort of short hand.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seriously, someone needs to explain this stuff to them, and fast!

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The debt they incur to buy those college educations these days seems to have opened some eyes. They were felling the Bern.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You wordsmith, you. :)

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Donald Trump is (mostly, so far) sticking to the "read the damn speech as it's written" strategy his new campaign managers have imposed upon him ...

    Am I the only one who finds Trump's TelePrompTer performances wholly surreal?

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    See, I do read the columns. :)

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Granted, backwards and after I go through the comments ...

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Rauner’s appeal to Chicago’s black community did indeed unlock new support, but not among black voters. Outreach to the black community accomplished three goals, 1) dampening Democratic turnout, 2) developing longer-term openings to black voters in future elections, and most importantly 3) helping Rauner dramatically outpoll other Republicans in Chicago’s more affluent wards. In other words, the most important impact of Rauner’s African-American outreach in the 2014 Election was felt in white neighborhoods."

    Source: https://goplifer.com/2015/09/17/blueprint-for-republican-reform-new-voters/

    The whole article is worth a read - it looks like Trump or one of his trusted insiders read it also and he is trying to emulate the "make white voters think the black community don't think we are racist" technique (as CW points out in the article). Of course, this was far easier for Rauner because he has no history of making racist statements, and is generally a good guy even if you don't like his policies.

    GOPLifer (well, not any more, Trump is making him vote for Hillary!) worked as a Republican precinct committeeman and had an insiders view of the Rauner campaign (Rauner is the governor of Illinois - quite a win for Republicans).

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Sadly, for many of them, this is the first time they've really done so. "

    I know I'm a news junkie, but are there really people out there who don't know the Trump highlights (imitating the disabled reporter, Judge Curiel, insulting the Gold Star parents, etc.)?

    I went to see Liverpool FC play in one of their warm up games in San Jose. The row behind was populated by 6-7 late 20's to early 30's guys from Fresno (Central Valley, typically the more conservative part of California). One of them repeatedly shouted "Sit Down" and "Go back to Univision" at opposing players or the referee if he disagreed with the call. It took me a couple of times to catch the reference (the Trump/Ramos news conference was over a year ago now - can you believe that?). One year on and this meme was still going strong. These guys were no problem, and we were bantering away about the game with them, but they didn't seem the news junkie types.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points [405] -- End Of The Silly Season

    Does that mean ya'all are going to get serious and talk about issues rather than just go with childish personal attacks and immature name-calling???

    Now that the Orange One has pivoted to being in favor of amnesty, I guess the media can stop pretending that he's not a politician. Politics is really the only explanation for his strategy of lying to his thugchumps to get through the primaries and then go full Rmoney RINO after he's nominated.

    Apparently not.... :^/

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    You raise a good point Chris: the Hillary speech this week was focused on the alt-right fringiness of Trump's campaign.

    Yea, I guess the "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" fear mongering just wasn't working anymore...

    So Hillary needed to create a new bogey man to fear-monger with.. :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    All Clinton did was to remind everyone of who Donald Trump is,

    A successful businessman who has shown COMPETENCE..

    As opposed to Hillary Clinton who can't name a SINGLE worthwhile accomplishment and who has created shitstorms and hellholes where ever she has tried to "help"...

    Syria, Russia, Libya, Benghazi, etc etc etc...

    Monuments to Hillary's utter incompetence in the area of foreign policy...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, Hillary: Trump’s policies are clearly better for blacks
    Hillary Clinton claims that some of Donald Trump’s appeal is “xenophobic, racist, misogynistic.” On Thursday she asked, “If he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?”

    But who actually cares more about blacks, in particular poor blacks?

    On everything from education to jobs to crime, Trump’s policies offer a lifeline to people who have been losing ground for decades. Hillary’s policies will just exacerbate them. And no amount of speeches will change that.

    And who’s harmed the most by illegal immigration? Who’s most likely to suffer unemployment or wage reductions due to the added competition? Young, unskilled blacks and Hispanics. The biggest beneficiaries? Wealthy people who get to pay less for lawn care and housecleaning.

    But crime is the immediate, life-and-death issue for so many blacks and Hispanics trapped in high-crime urban areas. Too many come to physical harm, have their property stolen, or lose their jobs as businesses are driven from their neighborhoods.

    Clinton seems more focused on helping criminals rather than their victims. She has promised to cut the US prison population by over 50 percent. By contrast, Trump says the problem is a lack of police in high-crime, heavily black areas. He believes in making things riskier for the criminals, not for the victims.

    Clinton doesn’t understand that the most likely victims of violent crime — poor blacks living in high-crime, urban neighborhoods — are the ones who stand to benefit the most from being able to defend themselves, and in fact her gun-control plan basically amounts to letting whites get guns but not minorities.

    For example, in Colorado in 2013, when the state enacted a tax on the private transfer of guns, all but two Democrats voted down a Republican amendment that would have exempted people below the poverty level from paying the new state tax.

    High fees to register guns in places such as Washington, DC, New York City or Chicago have meant that only the wealthy can legally own guns.

    Democrats clearly haven’t served blacks well, and more of the same isn’t going to help. If blacks are willing to listen to Trump, his logical arguments may have a real chance of winning them over.
    http://nypost.com/2016/08/25/sorry-hillary-trumps-policies-are-clearly-better-for-blacks/

    Apologies for the excessive bold, but there were so many good facts in the article, it was hard to choose which would be best to share...

    Let's face reality, my fellow Weigantians.. Black Americans are much worse off under Democrats... And every policy that Hillary will push will further victimize black Americans...

    When it comes to helping minorities, Trump is by far the better choice...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW... REALLY sorry for the excessive bold.. CW, if ya don't mind, could you close that B attribute??

    Tanks.... And planes!!! :D

    Heh, that never gets old... :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Experts Who Got Brexit Wrong Now Say Trump Can’t Win

    Is elite overconfidence surfacing again?

    Donald Trump says that the same experts and pollsters who incorrectly predicted that British voters would vote to stay in the European Union are now dismissing his chances to win the White House. That’s mostly true. Before the Brexit vote, PredictWise, a website that aggregates data on the likelihood of events, found that there was a 21 percent chance of its being approved. Early on the night of June 23, when Britons voted, it pinned the chances of Brexit’s passing at only 12 percent. Over the last month, PredictWise has placed Trump’s chances of winning at between 19 percent and 30 percent. Other American prediction outlets give Trump only a 15 to 25 percent chance of victory.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439382/donald-trump-predictions-experts-wrong-brexit-might-be-wrong-trump

    Apparently, someone over at NRO is reading CW.COM.. :D

    Because that is EXACTLY what I have been saying...

    All the naysayers who are screaming hysterically that Trump can't win are the EXACT same naysayers who were screaming hysterically that BREXIT would never pass...

    So, this begs the question..

    If they were so blatantly and overwhelmingly WRONG then....

    Why should they be believed now???

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Experts Who Got Brexit Wrong Now Say Trump Can’t Win

    Is elite overconfidence surfacing again?

    Donald Trump says that the same experts and pollsters who incorrectly predicted that British voters would vote to stay in the European Union are now dismissing his chances to win the White House. That’s mostly true. Before the Brexit vote, PredictWise, a website that aggregates data on the likelihood of events, found that there was a 21 percent chance of its being approved. Early on the night of June 23, when Britons voted, it pinned the chances of Brexit’s passing at only 12 percent. Over the last month, PredictWise has placed Trump’s chances of winning at between 19 percent and 30 percent. Other American prediction outlets give Trump only a 15 to 25 percent chance of victory.
    http://tinyurl.com/zul3cvo

    Apparently, someone over at NRO is reading CW.COM.. :D

    Because that is EXACTLY what I have been saying...

    All the naysayers who are screaming hysterically that Trump can't win are the EXACT same naysayers who were screaming hysterically that BREXIT would never pass...

    So, this begs the question..

    If they were so blatantly and overwhelmingly WRONG then....

    Why should they be believed now???

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwww carp!!!!! Sorry, people.. :(

    CW, admin note.. Ya might have missed it before, but the system has a problem with national and review .com when it's all together..

    And above, JFC found that 'basino' (with a 'c') trips the NNL filters...

    Just FYI...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    For taking Trump on in such a bold fashion, Hillary Clinton easily wins this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

    Or, more accurately, Clinton can't talk herself up.. She can't crow about her accomplishments or her competence because she has neither..

    So the ONLY option Clinton has is to attack Trump to try and obfuscate the FACT that she is the most incompetent, the most ethically challenged candidate in the history of US Elections...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe they'll have to leave, maybe they won't -- it all depends on what day Trump is asked the question, because his answers keep radically flip-flopping.

    You mean, like Hillary did on gay marriage?? NAFTA??? Crime Legislation?? TPP?? DOMA?? College Tuition?? "Super Predators"???

    Funny how when Trump does it, it's called "flip flop"...

    When Crooked Hillary does it, it's called "evolving"...

    :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Elizabeth [3]: I have a question. I just heard that Democrats have never won the white, college-educated vote in a presidential election. Is that correct? And, if so, why??

    No, Elizabeth, it isn't true, and I'm glad you brought it up, because it's a persistent lie that keeps coming up.

    In 2008 and 2012, Obama won the College Educated vote by about 10%, and those with Postgraduate degrees by 30%.

    Kerry lost the College grads by 4%, but carried the Postgrads by 6%.

    Gore lost College grads by 5%, Nader took 3%. Gore carried Postgrads by 10%, Nader to 4% of those.

    Bill Clinton took the College grads by 2% in 1992 and 1996. Perot took 8% of College grads in 1996, and a whopping 17% of College grads in 1992.

    Draw your own conclusions. The Chart I've just referenced can be found at:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

    PS. Looking at these numbers, it seems the most reliably predictive group are those with some college, who seem to have gone with the winner each time, but whether that's a 'bandwagon' effect, I don't know.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for that, Balthasar!

    That's a very interesting link.

    But, it looks like what I heard turns out to be mostly true ...

    I heard that Democrats have never won the white, college-educated vote and the stats in your link pretty much agree.

    For instance, in 2008 and 2012, Obama won the college-educated vote but lost the white vote by similar margins. Not sure how you sort that out but it would appear to be a wash.

    And, Kerry lost the college vote by 4% AND lost the white vote by 12%! Can't say that he won the white, college-educated vote.

    Clinton is really the only one who you could say "won" both the white and college-educated vote but both were within the margin of error so not really a win but a draw.

    It looks to me like what I heard one of the analysts on CNN say about the Democrats never winning the white, college-educated vote in a presidential election is correct.

    And, so, I ask again ... why is that!!!?

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    One reason might be that, until 2008, more males than females graduated with four year degrees.

    If you count just whites, females reached parity in college degrees only in 2014.

    And blacks and hispanics have much lower percentages finishing four years of college than whites. In 2015, 32% of white males finished four years of college, while just 22% of black males and 14% of Hispanics finished 4 years of college.

    Asians, by comparison, are the most highly educated segment of the population, with rates of four year college completion of 56.8% for males and 51.5% of females completing four year degrees.

    Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html

    In the last twenty years, asians have dramatically shifted to democrats: in 1992, just 30% of asians voted democratic, but by 2012, that number had risen to 73%.

    Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/16/439574726/how-asian-american-voters-went-from-republican-to-democratic

    But as David Wasserman at fivethirtyeight.com points out, "Even if Latino and Asian/other turnout were to plummet to zero, Democrats would still win the Electoral College 283 to 255 — despite losing the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points. That’s because Latino and Asian voters are heavily concentrated in non-competitive states like California, New York and Texas."

    But even if Trump is able to gain an absolute super-majority of white male votes, it may not help him. As Wasserman points out: "In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of all white voters and won election in a 44-state landslide. In 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney carried 59 percent of all white voters yet lost decisively."

    Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The takeaway (while that comment awaits moderation) is that white males have historically higher rates of college completion and a history of voting for Republicans. In future years, as women have achieved parity in graduation rates, that number is likely to change.

  36. [36] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    Tip o' the hat, by the way, neilm, for recommending GOP Lifers site a few months back. Been a regular reader for a while. Great commenting community there, as well as comment.

  37. [37] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    Balthasar [31] Elizabeth [32]: Harry Enten at Fivethirtyeight did some poking around and seems like Elizabeth's claim is true: article has a nice graph with links to the actual source data sets (yay!):

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-may-become-the-first-republican-in-60-years-to-lose-white-college-graduates/

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    So maybe there are a couple of headwinds for Trump with white collage graduates:

    1. Every four years the ratio of women to men increases
    2. Educated people are turned off by Trump's message

    Educated is not equivalent to high income, but of course there is a strong correlation. It seems from a few of the more granular polls that the stat-heads pull apart that show less drop off for wealth than for education levels among whites.

    However, my great friend who is an evangelical pastor (we couldn't be further apart in just about every political axis) told me that he and his wife were going to only vote for down ticket Republicans this year. This is a man who hosts fundraisers in his home with Jonah Goldberg etc. (I sometimes get verbal invites as a joke at lunchtime), and he can't stand Trump - he sees him as a fake Republican.

    I think many, or even most, real Republicans, the ones who put time, money and effort into the Republican Party can't stand what Trump is doing to their party.

    But that is the problem, it isn't the party of the people who invest in it - it is the party of Limbaugh, Hannity, Breitbart and Infowars now.

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I think many, or even most, real Republicans, the ones who put time, money and effort into the Republican Party can't stand what Trump is doing to their party.
    But that is the problem, it isn't the party of the people who invest in it - it is the party of Limbaugh, Hannity, Breitbart and Infowars now.

    Yup. The Know-Nothings are back - this time causing havoc over the issue of immigration (rather than slavery and immigration).

    Question is, when this is all over, will the Republican know-somethings of today have the cojones that their forefathers did: to split the party rather than accept a philosophy that they can't abide?

  40. [40] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    Jeff Weaver for most disappointing.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is he the one who came up with the name, Our Revolution? Someone should get MDDOTW just for that!

    I mean, how much time and thought goes into something as important as the name of such an entity? Am I the only one who thinks the name is intimately wound up with the prospective effectiveness of a group like this?

    VV and OR ... good luck with those!

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no liz, you're not the only one.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's hard to think of a good one for what Sanders wants to continue ... but he's had a lot of time and experiences to draw upon to think up a catchy one. I've got nothing ...

    BTW, do you know why Jeff Weaver is so despised by so many? And, wouldn't any of those reasons also be why they should equally despise Sanders himself?

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Matt,

    Jeff Weaver for most disappointing.

    Shouldn't Senator Sanders also get one of those or is Jeff Weaver acting solo on the set up of this new group?

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Question is, when this is all over, will the Republican know-somethings of today have the cojones that their forefathers did: to split the party rather than accept a philosophy that they can't abide?

    This is the point that finally finished off GOPLifer (Chris Ladd). He watched as Ryan, McConnell, etc. admonished Trump's positions but then endorsed him.

    Will they still play to Trump's audience once Trump is gone? I think they will, but will revert to the dog whistles that allow the Republicans Trump has repulsed back into the fold without feeling like bigots.

    Thus I expect the Republican Party to fade slowly via demographics rather than quickly with a split. I'd be very surprised if any Republican candidate in the next 12 years gets over 15% of the African American vote or over 30% of the Latino vote for a long time, and they may have permanently lost their majority of educated white women. Add in a youth crisis for them and it is difficult to see how Ragin' Ted Cruz's All Conservative Crusade will win in 2020 unless Hillary really pratfalls. I mean really pratfalls, not just a dozen new conspiracies from the Alex Jones brigade.

  46. [46] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [42],

    I have to agree. Bernie clearly trusts JW.

  47. [47] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [39] Pokémon GO Revolution?

  48. [48] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "do you know why Jeff Weaver is so despised by so many?"

    From reading the NYT, it appears that the resigning complainers disagreed with his campaign tactics like running TV ads and it kind of sounds like he wasn't as much fun as a boss as they'd like.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I read that, too and thought there might be something more to it than that.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [39] Pokémon GO Revolution?

    I'm gonna go ahead and put a nix on that one.

    If I never hear or see Pokémon again, it will be too soon.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    A Clearer Portrait Emerges of Trump Supporters:

    "Specifically, “where Trump’s supporters see conspiracies, Clinton’s do not; where the Trumpenvolk fear immigrants, Clinton voters embrace them. And where Trump’s supporters express apprehension about their financial future, Clinton voters tend toward optimism.” "

    https://psmag.com/a-clearer-portrait-emerges-of-trump-supporters-7929ba8992a5#.m8xtidoac

    A good read.

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    A rose by any other name would still be a rose.

    Not that I'm one to listen to when looking for a name, but shouldn't it have been Your Revolution?

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A rose by any other name would still be a rose.

    You make a good point ... no, you make a very good point. :)

    Your Revolution (YR)? Doesn't do a thing for me ...

    I think we need a three-letter acronym.

  54. [54] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "shouldn't it have been Your Revolution?"

    Some people say that Black Lives Matter made an error by not tacking Too on the end of their name. I think maybe it should be: It's Your Revolution.

    Their slogan could be: You do it.

    Otherwise, it could just be (We're Going To Sell Out) Our Revolution or Your Revolution (Is Dead).

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm: agree completely with you at [44].

    Also enjoyed the article you linked to at [50]. Seems fairly dead-on. It tells me that Trump has 'softened' his way into trouble with his base, who are naturally suspicious of a fellow who, one day, out of the blue, says: 'my policy will be no different than Barack Obama's'.

    There are some things you can't take back, and that's one of them.

    Don't worry, Michale, I'm not predicting Trump's demise on this one issue, but, all in all, it's just another brick in the wall.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Another good point!

    And, It's Our Revolution would be IOR ... :)

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Naw, Elizabeth, what Bernie needs is branding. The state flower of Vermont is the Red Clover. What a wonderful analogy for a movement that you want to spread. And the iconography is built-in.

    So how about the 'Clover Revolution?' I like the sound of that.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Too exclusive, I think ... but, the concept is great and should be explored further.

  59. [59] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I would toss into the why JW is disliked....

    He has a bit of the Paul Manafort stink on him...considering he was one of Manaforts leutenants...

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC (52)-
    While it may or may not become a sell out (why Claire Sandberg said she quit because she said Jeff Weaver wanted to accept Big Money contributions), it appears that it is at least heading down the road to become just another MoveOn kind of group that pretends to be grass roots but really is more about exploiting problems and manipulating people to raise money than actually solving problems and finding ways to have citizens actual control the organization.
    That is why I referred to OR in the past tense.
    The "You do it" slogan sounds like the right idea, but the Our Revolution slogan would have to be "You do this" if it were to be honest.
    "You do it" would be much more appropriate for that other badly named attempt at an organization as that is what that one really is. The "Get your balls back" slogan hasn't caught on.

  61. [61] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    You're welcome to "You do it". I didn't promise it to them or trademark or anything. You could be the DIY Revolution.

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "You do it" has some problems, as it sounds like something you might say after your roommate points out that the dishes in the sink are growing mold.

    "Okay then, YOU do it." You get my point.

    If you want to sponsor a revolution, you want your followers to be 1) inspired, and 2)willing to march into danger. "You do it" won't exactly win you recruits. Some alternative suggestions:

    "All Together Now"
    "Make America NICE again!"
    "From each, according to their ability,
    to each according to their need"
    "Feel the Bern!"
    "Catch Fire"
    "Fire it up!"
    "Bern it up!"
    "Throwing bricks at Wall Street since 1968"
    "Occupy America"
    "Not your Father's Revolution"
    "The Cat Herd Revolution"
    "Bernie's Amazing Idea"
    "The Everyone Project"

    I could go on...

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, you shouldn't. :)

    Seriously, when searching for the right name for an organization, you should start from the basics ...

    What was the Sanderson revolution all about? What were the objectives. What were the methods. What were the top 10 key words? Making a list of the key words and phrases will help in the formation of the perfect name.

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a start ...

    Revolution

    Democracy that works for everyone

    Justice - Economic, Social

    Reform - Campaign Finance

    Equality

    Renewal

    Constitution

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Change

    the Future

    a better America

    Struggle

    Vision

    Possibilities

  66. [66] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How about Taking Back "We the People..." ?

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Or No Profits in Politics

  68. [68] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Our super PAC is going to end up named:

    Concerned Revolutionaries and Branders Renaming VV for America!

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    United

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Only if you get side-tracked, JFC. Heh.

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Looking at the "Our Revolution" (a name that's growing on me) website, they list three key goals:

    *supporting a new generation of progressive leaders

    *empowering millions to fight for progressive change

    *elevating the political consciousness

    Support.Empowerment.Consciousness Raising. It's liberal, all right.

    In the end, it's a progressive PAC with a ground game, or some sort of mobilization plan, like Obama's "Organizing for Action" (formerly, Organizing for America) aspires to be.

    OFA's website describes their goal as "finding and training the next generation of great progressive organizers", so perhaps those organizers can then help Our Revolution to actually mobilize people, rather than just cash, to elect progressives. Or something.

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re: Concerned Revolutionaries and Branders Renaming VV for America, United

    People of the Word, Unite!

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Looking at the "Our Revolution" (a name that's growing on me)

    It's growing on me, too ...

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Our Revolution sounds like something a large percentage of Americans, regardless of party affiliation or non-affiliation, can get behind.

  75. [75] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    To be honest (and nit-picky), they don't broaden their appeal by using the word 'progressives' twice in their mission statement.

    And it kinda misses the whole 'anti-elite' vibe that propelled Bernie into the big game. The website gets to that eventually, but they might actually do better with a more radical tone:

    "To restore financial Equality to America"

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    rather, "Economic Equality". That sounds better.

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Progressive has become a bad word to many people who could be persuaded that Our Revolution is something they can support.

    A more inclusive term is needed that does not reference party affiliation, I think ... the idea is to get all kinds of Americans on board with this.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    'Our Revolution' is pretty inclusive ...

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... economic justice?

  80. [80] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the name
    We’ll tell you that it needs an acronym
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the name
    But when you talk about Jeff Weaver
    Don't you know that you can count me out

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    How about: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity?

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or in French ... Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or Tous pour un, un pour tous

  84. [84] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [78] Or that. I was attempting to say: somehow mitigate our unbelievable wealth disparity.

    [79] perfect!

    Neilm: Sentir la Brûlure!

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "I'm looking for someone to change my life.
    I'm looking for a miracle in my life."
    -Moody Blues
    How about the Miracle Movement?
    The slogan could be "I need a miracle everyday" which would get all the deadheads to sign up.

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There must be a Dead tune for that.

    Which brings up another point.

    Our Revolution needs to have a theme song ...

    And, it needs to have the support of a good portion of the artistic community.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All of which reminds ... where is Michale?

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If it wasn't for my personal problems with M&M's we could use them to get publicity by sending lots of M&M's to media sources to get them to pay attention to the movement.
    (I was fired from the M&M factory for throwing out all the W's.)

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When do we take this show on the road?

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Another benefit of the Miracle Movement name is when the naysayers say it will take a miracle to accomplish our goal we can say "Exactly."

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes we can!

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Miracle the horse from "History of the World- Part 1" could be our mascot.

  93. [93] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (84)-
    "I need a miracle everyday" is a dead song.

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I knew that. :)

Comments for this article are closed.