Well, the second round of the Democratic debates is over, which means we are now smack in the middle of the debate about the debates. This is a window where we don't yet have an accurate picture of whether this week's debates will change anything in the polling (likely outcome: not very much), so instead of hard data all we have to argue about is sheer speculation and opinion. And, from what's being said, some are wringing their hands with worry.

They shouldn't be. Seriously, we are still so early in the process that all of this will be forgotten (for better or worse) by the time anyone actually casts a ballot. So calm down, everyone, and stop freaking out.

Continue Reading »

Whew! The second Democratic presidential debates are now officially in the history books. Thankfully, this will likely be the last marathon two-night debate round, as the third debate is likely to cut the field so significantly that those who qualify might all be able to fit on a single stage.

Continue Reading »

OK, I fully admit that I just couldn't resist that title.

Last night was indeed a throwdown in the Motor City, with 10 Democrats sparring on one stage. My overall impression of the first round of the second debates was that this was, in many ways, the debate that I've been personally itching to see for at least four years now. It was a direct confrontation between the "moderate" or "centrist" wing of the Democratic Party versus the "progressive" or "Democratic" wing of the party. It rarely descended into personalities, and instead remained a purely ideological battle of different visions for how to lead both Democrats and the entire country into the future. We almost got such a debate last time, with Bernie mixing it up with Hillary, but there was far too much personality getting in the way of the purely ideological debate. Also, both the country and the Democratic Party have moved significantly since 2016, so the ground for this debate has shifted.

Many are using the term "tag team" to describe how there were clear dividing lines between the "teams" on stage last night. There was virtually no conflict between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren -- indeed, they could have delivered each other's lines without skipping a beat. There was also not much tension between all the moderates attacking the progressives, as they were all fully focused on making a name for themselves by scoring points against either Sanders or Warren. So the night did have a "tag team" feel to it.

The dividing line was pretty clear. The two factions can be summed up as the "Dream Big!" faction versus the "Dream Small!" faction. On one side are the folks who think that presenting breathtakingly ambitious goals is the way to fire up voters, and on the other side are those who caution that pragmatism and incrementalism is really all the voters can hope for, so why not be honest with them? No matter where you personally come down on that sliding scale, last night was an excellent examination of the pros and cons of each side's argument. What it all boils down to is how voters are going to define the nebulous concept of "electability" in the age of Donald Trump -- who was supposed to be the most unelectable candidate ever, right up until he got elected.

Continue Reading »

The way Mitch McConnell sees it, he's taking a bold stance against the federalization of elections in America. The way everyone else sees it, he's refusing to allow any bills dealing with beefing up the security of America's elections from going forward, thus becoming what was called during the Red Scare and the Cold War a "useful idiot" for Moscow -- because by his refusal to act, he is furthering the ability of Vladimir Putin to attack our elections once again. But while this is a fascinating exercise in political theater all around, today's news shows without a shadow of a doubt that the supposed Republican reverence for "states' rights" when it comes to conducting elections evaporates instantly when one of those states does something with which they do not agree. This has always been the case, really, when it comes to right-wing support for the concept of states' rights.

Continue Reading »

The second round of Democratic presidential debates begins tomorrow night. CNN will host two nights, with 10 candidates randomly drawn for each night. The lineups are more interesting than the last time around, at least to me, so it should make for some interesting television to watch. Added to the excitement is the prospect for many of the candidates on stage that this may be the last time they get to appear at such an event. With little to lose, the minor candidates may be making a lot more noise, in other words.

The mechanics of the lineups were handled better this time around, as the D.N.C. learned from their first attempt at balancing the field between two nights. There were actually three random draws -- one for the top four candidates, one for the middle six candidates, and one for the other 10 who qualified. This avoided the frontloading that happened last time, when there were only two draws. The first night will have Elizabeth Warren facing off with Bernie Sanders, and the second will be a rematch between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. While most people are focusing on the second head-to-head matchup, I'm much more interested in the first one.

There's a hard, cold fact that many progressives haven't yet fully faced, and that is if they want to maximize their chances of seeing the Democrats nominate a progressive presidential candidate, at some point during the race either Warren or Sanders is going to have to voluntarily drop out and throw their support behind the other. Otherwise they'll spend the entire primary season splitting the progressive vote, thus giving Joe Biden (or some other candidate, conceivably) a clearer path to victory. Just look at how the GOP couldn't coalesce around an "anti-Trump" candidate in 2016, if you need proof of how this works.

Continue Reading »

We're going to wait until the talking points to fully delve into the catchy hashtag #MoscowMitch, because we feel the point being made is an important one that may just get a whole lot more attention over the next month or so (if the Democrats are capable of following through, that is -- always an open question). Suffice it to say for now that Mitch McConnell is taking an absolutely indefensible stand by essentially aiding and abetting America's enemies.

The big story of the week this week, however, was Robert Mueller's testimony before two different House committees. Our reactions to this spectacle weren't exactly what everyone else in the media focused on, but then that's not saying very much since everyone else was grading Mueller on whether his televised testimony was sufficiently entertaining enough to get high viewer ratings. We sincerely wish we were making that up, but we are not.

Continue Reading »

Due to a sudden and unexpected wedding, there will be no column today, sorry. One of my oldest and best friends decided to tie the knot unexpectedly, so my presence was required elsewhere. Congratulations to the happy couple! My apologies for the interruption in service, and fresh columns will resume tomorrow.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

While plenty of others have plenty of other things to say today about Robert Mueller's testimony in front of two House committees, what struck me the most was a rather large unanswered question. Indeed, it was hard to actually avoid thinking about the concept, because in the first hearing most of the Democrats finished their five minutes with some form of the following declaration: "No one is above the law," sometimes adding: "...not even a president" and sometimes just leaving it implied. But does this phrase have any real-world meaning or is it just so much sanctimonious nonsense?

There are two reasons I ask this rather fundamental question, one technical and one purely political. First, the technical legal problem, which was touched upon by one of the Democratic questioners in the second hearing, but was largely left unanswered by Mueller (and then the questioner either moved on or ran out of time). Since the Justice Department believes that no sitting president can be indicted, does that mean that all crimes with a statute of limitations shorter than the president's term in office can be freely committed if the president is not impeached?

Continue Reading »

It's one of those rare weeks where things may actually get done in Congress, as they all prepare to flee Washington for their usual monthlong August vacation. While Bob Mueller's made-for-TV testimony tomorrow is currently dominating the news, behind the scenes a rather momentous deal was just cut between Nancy Pelosi and the White House. A budget deal has been reached which will last until well after the 2020 election cycle is done. This two-year agreement will avoid defaulting on the national debt by raising the debt ceiling until 2021, and will also provide the framework not only for this year's budget bills but also for next year's as well. This will hopefully avoid most of the usual histrionics surrounding the budget, because nobody really wants a fiscal cliff or a government shutdown during an election year.

Being a compromise between Democrats and Republicans, there is something in the new budget for just about everyone to hate. Such is the way of sausage-making, I suppose. On the left, there is a whole lot more money for the Pentagon, but the days of Democrats making a big deal over the increasing size of the military budget are mostly over, so this will likely not be all that contentious in the end. The bigger problem, for progressives, is that Nancy Pelosi entered into an agreement over all the budget bills that Congress will have to individually pass to keep the government funded. These are must-pass bills, since without them the government shuts down. As such, they are sometimes used to push agenda items that the other side doesn't like. The leverage of having to pass the budget bills means certain demands can be made and then hashed out between the parties. But not this time, as Pelosi has agreed to not propose any "poison pill" amendments to any of the budget bills. It is unclear whether this agreement is actually written into this week's deal or just a handshake agreement between her and the White House, but if she sticks to it, it will mean she has given away any leverage progressives might have used to advance their agenda for the next two years. Some on the left are already howling about this rather large restriction.

Continue Reading »

I realize that we are still in the midst of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, but today I'd like to leap forward to present a very simple (and, to me, obvious) strategy for whomever secures the Democratic nomination and has to take on Donald Trump in next year's general election. Because I think I've come up with an all-encompassing campaign slogan that will stand the test of both time and Trump. It cuts to the very heart of the argument that a Democrat -- any Democrat, in fact -- would be miles better than what we've got now. Picture the presidential nominee repeating at every rally next summer the following line: "Do we really want this for the next four years?!?"

Its generic nature is its strength. You can either spell out in great detail what "this" refers to, or you can just let it hang and allow the voters to fill in that blank. Either way, it asks voters a very basic question -- do they want to spend the next four years the way we've all spent the past two and a half?

Continue Reading »