Democratic primaries

All posts tagged Democratic primaries

Clinton is in trouble

Posted by noonante on March 9, 2016
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , . Leave a comment

Yesterday’s primary results in Michigan and Mississippi are yet another indication that Hillary Clinton’s “inevitability” or “electability” tropes are in serious trouble.  She lost Michigan after polls showed her with large double-digit leads.  Her Mississippi margin of victory was huge, continuing a pattern where her biggest wins are in Southern states.

She may well hold on to win the Democratic nomination, although that no longer looks like the mortal lock it has long been viewed. But disturbing trends in the primaries make her vulnerable, even to a cartoonish character such as Donald Trump.

For starters, she cannot count on racking up general election wins in states of the Deep South.  It’s been a while since any Democrat could bank on that.  But states such as Michigan and Kansas, as well as barely wining in Iowa, demonstrate that she does not have wide geographic appeal.

Then there is her constantly being trounced by Bernie Sanders in younger demographic groups.  It’s not just the enthusiasm gap, which is substantial.  Younger women are not as enamored of the idea of this woman as President as older groups.  Even among African-Americans  –  a group she views as her strongest base  –  she only tied with Sanders for the support of younger blacks.

Then there is her favorability rating among all voters.  She and Donald Trump have the two lowest such ratings  –  both are under water with less than 50 per cent.  That is remarkable when one considers that Ted Cruz is in the field.

Clinton has never been a good campaigner, although she does do better when her back is to the wall.  This is, after all, the second time she started a campaign for the Presidency as the heavy post-time favorite.  But her defensiveness and careful parsing of answers fuels the notion that she is not trustworthy  –  again her rating on trustworthiness does not exceed 50 per cent.

Her Sunday night debate with Sanders included two notable examples.  Moderator Don Lemon quoted Avenue Q as saying that every white person has a blind spot on race and asked Clinton what hers is.  It’s a tough and unexpected question, and Clinton evaded with a canned answer.  Lemon came right back, and this time Clinton said, “Are you going to ask Bernie Sanders that?”  After twice trying to not respond, she ended up doing so.  (Sanders was asked the same question.)

But the other statement was one for which she has had ample time to develop a response.  She had been asked by a moderator in an earlier debate if she would release the transcripts of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs for which she was paid $675,000.  She said she “would look into it,” which, for veteran observers of both Clintons, meant “not on your life.”

When the issue came up on Sunday, she said she would release hers when all other candidates, including Republicans, released transcripts of their speeches.  She said this with the smile of the cat who ate the canary, indicating that, once again, she was cleverer than the rest of us.

Actually, she is not more clever, since her non-answer indicated that her ties with Wall Street are more important than what voters might think.  And, it again buttresses her inherent lack of trustworthiness and contempt for our intelligence.

Of course, one of the cardinal rules of writing about politics this season is that no column can fail to discuss Donald Trump.  I was catching up on Real Time with Bill Maher this week.  On his February 26 show, he was agog about how wild the previous night’s Republican debate had been, saying he had never seen anything like it.  I laughed, because in the debate the following week, we saw the leading Republican candidate assure viewers that his penis was big.  That, of course, became his next show’s most surprising event in political history.

I missed last night’s Trump victory speech in a room that probably is the model for how he will do a classy redecoration of the White House.  By all accounts, it was a bizarre spectacle, with Trump standing near a table loaded with Trump steaks, Trump vodka and Trump wine, and discussing each of these top products.  So in one of Charlie Pierce’s blogs today, I particularly enjoyed this sentence:  “You will never see another performance like the one he put on last night.”  What’s your over-under on how many more times that statement will be made during this campaign?

Will Clinton ever get it?

Posted by noonante on February 9, 2016
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

When you have been a major national figure for 25 years, elected to the United States Senate and twice a formidable candidate for the Presidency, one might expect that you have developed a certain proficiency in the political game.  But Hillary Clinton continues to demonstrate her tone-deafness, defensiveness and seeming inability to think beyond today’s question.

At Thursday night’s debate, she was predictably asked about her taking speaking fees of $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three talks she delivered.  It had been in the news and she had already been asked about it on several occasions.  Once again, she could not explain adequately why a major Wall Street player  –  and one who had had just agreed to a $5 billion fine for its deceptive behavior in the mortgage sub-prime melt down  –  would pay her that kind of money.  This time, it was because they wanted to hear her thoughts, in particular about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.  She used the bin Laden comment twice.

As President Rudy Giuliani could tell you, you cannot make enough political hay from the 9/11 attacks.  Clinton herself had already tried the 9/11 tactic on the Goldman Sachs payments by earlier saying  –  to much derision  –  that the payments were justified because she was the United States Senator representing Wall Street on 9/11.

But if a savvy Wall Street investment bank is going to pay $225K per pop to learn about the bin Laden killing, it is to hear details that were not in the public record.  Of course, that would necessarily involve classified information, for which Clinton is already under scrutiny because of her email issue.

She was then asked by NBC moderator, Chuck Todd, if she would release the transcripts of her remarks.  Once again, predictably, she did not attempt to diffuse any further controversy by saying “Of course, I have nothing to hide.”  Rather, she said “I will look into it.”  What that means, of course, is that she will only release them after considerable pressure, and never while in a primary fight with Bernie Sanders.  Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has a take on the likely content of her remarks.

Clinton also ridiculed the notion that she was a member of the “establishment” that is so under attack in both the Democratic and Republican campaigns.  She may have been a key policy advisor in her husband’s Administration, served as a United States Senator, twice been the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and a multi-millionaire based on that CV, but could not be an “establishment” figure because  –  she is a woman.

While there can be no doubt that electing a woman as President would be a significant breakthrough, nor that the “establishment” is dominated by white men, her claim is fatuous.  Aside from her background and legitimate claim to be one of the best qualified candidates to run for the office since George H.W. Bush, being a woman does not disqualify her from being not only part of the “establishment,” but one of its preeminent members.

And while running as a woman is certainly a valid point, she may wish to seriously consider the wisdom of the support she has received recently from allies who criticized young women for supporting Bernie Sanders.  Madeline Albright, 78 years old, lamented that young women did not appreciate the contributions those of Hillary’s generation made to further equal rights.  Icon Gloria Steinem, who is 81, speculated that young women joined the Sanders campaign “to meet boys.”  Steinem recanted her remarks after public criticism.  What could be more sexist than presuming that women  –  of any age  –  will vote based on their gender rather than on what they perceive the merits to be?

Such comments are not only tone-deaf and counter-productive, but oblivious of the reasons younger women may support Sanders.  The most obvious one, of course, is that Sanders has strong support among younger voters  –  not just women.  But also that Hillary’s questionable tactics in denigrating the many women who accused her husband of sexual behavior are especially troublesome in today’s atmosphere regarding violence against women.

Clinton, of course, may well defeat Bernie Sanders soundly.  And her relationships with Wall Street and support among young women voters are unlikely to be a negative in a campaign against any of the Republican candidates.  But her continuing inability to effectively anticipate problems and respond to them are going to continue to dog her campaign.