Showing posts with label Clintons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clintons. Show all posts

Saturday, August 24, 2024

My Thoughts on the DNC

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Thanks to the DNC this week, I got in very little writing, so we're going to do something I never do and kind of do an "article dump" today of all of the articles I meant to write this week, but instead got sucked into the DNC.  So read these at your leisure (but hopefully read them all if you are interested), but my hope is to do a 4-5 article Saturday.  

We're going to, in fact, start with the DNC, which I watched a shockingly large amount of this past week.  I always catch the DNC, but it depends on the year whether or not I get super sucked in or not, and this year was maybe the best example of the DNC I've ever seen, so I was into it the whole time.

I think part of it was the excitement.  A month ago (and yes, it was just over a month ago-can you believe that?) we were looking at a very different DNC.  Biden was floundering after a horrendous debate performance, and was being asked by high-profile Democrats like Nancy Pelosi to drop out of the race.  We were down badly in the polls, and it looked like, for the first time since 1984, we were going to go into the convention as clear underdogs for November, with little reason for hope.

But then Biden dropped out, and the last month has been a flawless rollout of the Kamala Harris for President campaign.  Harris is more practiced, more disciplined, and less silly than she was in 2020; it's ironic in a campaign that is literally about "bringing the joy back" that Harris herself has had to make herself less joyful, her trademark cackle laugh nearly banished from her interviews and speeches (I say this as someone else who has a famous cackle laugh-I feel her pain on this one).  After a lot of media swirl, she picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running-mate, a choice that some initially criticized for its lack of an obvious swing state impact, but honestly-the campaign could not have chosen better if they tried.  Walz has proven a superstar even people who have followed his career for years couldn't have predicted, and watching him alongside figures like Mark Kelly & Josh Shapiro at the DNC...it's clear Walz was the right choice.

This all led to a really moving and at times bittersweet DNC.  Like I said, I've watched at least some of the DNC since 1992, when I was eight (I remember seeing Clinton's immortal "I still believe in a place called Hope" which, in my opinion, is still the finest single line I've ever witnessed in politics), and I've seen really good DNC's before (1992, 2008, & 2012 all come to mind), but I've never seen a DNC with this kind of production value.  For a group of speeches that had to be completely rewritten and replanned in the past couple of weeks, it's insane how well this went.

Let's examine the evidence, shall we?  First, Harris & Walz, both in completely different roles than they would've been at this DNC on July 1st (her as VP, him as DGA Chair) aced their speeches-home runs, wonderful, totally did exactly what they needed to do.  But the rest of the DNC is where the real marvel was.  For starters, we saw vulnerable Democrats who wouldn't have been within 50 miles of Joe Biden after that debate clamoring to be a part of this.  There was a lot of press about Jon Tester & Jacky Rosen not being able to make it, but lots of vulnerable Democrats like Elissa Slotkin, Ruben Gallego, & Pat Ryan were all speaking on the main stage, and I spotted more vulnerable Democrats like Angie Craig & Jahana Hayes repeatedly on the camera in the audience.  There was no sense that tossup district Democrats were trying to avoid the DNC, which was definitely a thing that Biden's reelection campaign was experiencing.  That's entirely due to Harris's improved standings in the polls.

We also saw the future of the party on display.  Early on, we saw speeches from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Jasmine Crockett that went viral on social media, announcing these two young women (who have been some of the most impressive stars in recent years out of the most recent Congresses), land well.  Both of them are likely to get bigger opportunities at the DNC in the future after that.  We saw the crop of new governors like Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, & JB Pritzker take the stage, with Harris (unlike Trump) not afraid of putting people onstage that threaten to outshine her...partially because they didn't (Harris didn't give the best speech of the DNC, but she was good enough no one's going to point that out save for apparently me).  We also saw better celebrities.  Though no Beyonce or Taylor Swift (as was rumored at one point...I suspect the Harris campaign gets her next to both before the year is over), but we still had a surprise appearance by Oprah Winfrey on top of scheduled guest spots by Stevie Wonder, Kerry Washington, Eva Longoria, P!nk, & Kenan Thompson (for comparison, the only big celebrity name that Trump got was Hulk Hogan).

President Bill Clinton (D-AR)
And perhaps most importantly, we saw the past of the Democratic convention.  Trump's coronation was marked by the lack of virtually any major Republicans from before the Trump Era.  Part of this is that most of them are gone at this point or publicly disgraced (Dennis Hastert, looking at you).  But George & Laura Bush, Dick & Lynne Cheney, widows of John McCain or Bob Dole, Paul Ryan or John Boehner, Mitt Romney...none of them were on that stage for the DNC.  Mitch McConnell showed up and got booed (for the record, the only person booed at the DNC that I saw was Kathy Hochul, which feels about right, and that includes Republicans like Adam Kinzinger & Stephanie Grisham, both of whom endorsed Kamala Harris-you didn't see any of that sort of crossover attempt at the RNC), and he was the only pre-Trump figure to make the effort.

Meanwhile, the Democrats had both the Clintons, both the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and both the Bidens take the stage.  Al Gore & John Kerry were spotted near the event, and both Jesse Jackson & Elizabeth Warren were obviously moved by the rapturous applause they got from the stadium.  Scions of major Democratic political families like Jack Schlossberg (grandson of President Kennedy), Jason Carter (grandson of President Carter), and Cecile Richards (daughter of Governor Ann Richardson) were given moments in the spotlight.  This was a celebration of the old-and-the-new.  Some clucked at this ("who really wants to hear from Bill Clinton again?"), which in hindsight looks moronic.  The Democrats showing a sense of stability, a sense of movement forward, is really something.  It also led to some of the week's most moving speeches.  Michelle Obama gave the best speech of her career and of the week (not hyperbole, I stand behind this as truly her best, and that's a high bar to cross given what a gifted orator she is), going from the high-minded hope of 2016 to it's-time-to-fight-back of 2024.  Bill Clinton, though a bit torn up by age at this point (he talks slower and quieter than he did in his heyday), still gave a moving soliloquy that, along with Michelle Obama's, told Democrats that this isn't done yet-and they need to be grownups as Harris & Walz enter the real world of the campaign, and not panic when they inevitably stumble.

It was extra moving because Bill Clinton pointed out the obvious here when he said (and I cried when he admitted it), "I don't know how many more of these I have left."  It's true-Clinton admitted at the start of his speech that he was the oldest man in the history of his family.  We have had so much focus on Joe Biden's age we forget that Jill (not to mention Bill & Hillary, Jesse Jackson, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, & Nancy Pelosi) are not young anymore either.  It is very atypical for a former First Lady to appear after her husband is done with politics-we have been blessed that Hillary & Michelle continued to take that perch and make the case to a base that loves them.  It's hard not to feel like this is one of those Olympics where a lot of longtime favorites admit that this is probably their last, and that it's time for us to put our hearts into the new names...even if they will never feel quite the same.  The DNC is always better than the RNC (we get better celebrities, and we have better union help on it, and unions represent better quality), but this one was especially poignant because it captured a sense of "let's win this, one last time" in a way that 2016 and 2020 never could.

Thursday, April 25, 2024

What the Left Doesn't Understand About Winning Elections

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
This past week, former First Lady, Secretary of State, and 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted a graphic about the climate plans of Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  In it, you can see that Trump has significantly higher carbon emissions by 2050 than Biden, though neither are currently projecting to their target.  For rational people, the graphic and Clinton's intent is simple: she is showing how Biden is actually trying to improve the climate crisis while Trump ignores it, and also points out that voters have some say in the matter if we want to get to zero emissions.  Biden has been very public about wanting to get zero emissions by 2050; this is, in fact, on his official White House page.  Trump, on the other hand, has publicly backed growing coal production if he is elected.  Two very different plans on a vital issue.

This was not, however, how Twitter reacted, and it was in fact the far left on Twitter who regularly disparaged the graph claiming "there's no difference between the two candidates" despite Clinton's graph clearly illustrating that there is a difference between the two.  This is not a singular phenomenon, nor is it a new one.  Other issues-of-the-day, such as the situation in Gaza, public healthcare, & criminal justice reform are all situations where the left has recently stated "there's no difference between the two candidates...what does it matter?" even when there was clearly a big gap between the two.

As a Democrat my whole life, this is is the single most annoying thing about my party (that, and how we always seem to lose Florida in even the tightest of elections).  We regularly make the perfect the enemy of the good, and as a result, we get neither.  Some will claim this is a Gen Z issue, but it's not-it goes back as far as I can remember.  I recall distinctly in the 2000 election, for example, that people were claiming there was no difference between Bush and Gore that cycle, a profoundly stupid proclamation given both their politics (Bush was considerably more conservative than Gore) and what would happen next (on one side you have An Inconvenient Truth, the other side you have the Iraq War, two polar opposite situations for the planet).  This has frequently been an issue from the young, and that has made it more pronounced now, not just because social media becomes an echo chamber where you're rewarded for having less-nuanced takes, but also because the youth vote continues to be more liberal.  In 1980, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan received roughly the same percentage of voters under 25; in 2020, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump with voters under 25 by 20-points.  If young voters stay home, Democrats lose.

And low turnout among Democrats cost them elections.  I'll give you an example with the 2014 midterms.  In 2012, Democrats had a 6-point advantage in turnout over the Republicans, with 38D-32R-29I in terms of the electorate.  Mitt Romney actually won Independents slightly over President Obama, but the sheer force of turnout amongst Democrats got Obama a victory in both the popular and electoral votes that year.  If you compare that with 2014, though, you have a situation where the electorate was 36R-35D-28I, a three-point loss for Democrats and a four-point gain for Republicans.  This isn't because the Republicans did a marvelous job in 2014 with turnout, as turnout that cycle was the worst for a presidential midterm since 1942.  No, this happened because more Democrats stayed home, despite President Obama & congressional Democrats trying to persuade progressives to get out the vote by centering the campaign around key issues from the left such as a minimum wage increase, climate change, & same-sex marriage protection, Democrats abandoned their position, and let the Republicans win.  As we would see two years later with the contentious campaign between Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders, this showed a serious gap between Democrats who wanted to get as much as what they could from a plausible electorate, and Democrats who would threaten to stay home if they didn't get their specific way.

This causes serious issues.  You all know the story of what happened to Clinton, where a dip in both Democratic turnout (she had an overall two-point drop from Obama, likely enough to cost her Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, & Michigan, and with that, the election) caused her to lose to Donald Trump (and if you can't see there would've been a difference between a President Clinton and a President Trump at this point, you are beyond repair).  But 2014 is just as important.  Let's assume that the Democrats can get a 4-point swing by just matching the 2012 turnout percentages (that seems roughly in the sweet spot).  Democrats in that case will hold the Senate races in North Carolina, Colorado, & Alaska.  Not quite enough to flip the Senate, but enough to make Mitch McConnell's stop of the Merrick Garland nomination moot.  After all, the Democrats netted two seats in 2016 in the Senate...meaning the Democrats would flip the Senate in 2016 under this scenario, and Neil Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh are not able to get confirmed.  Staying home in 2014, making the perfect the enemy of the good in a low-turnout election, cost the Democrats the Supreme Court for decades (also side note given I slammed them earlier-that increase of turnout would've ended Rick Scott's career as he would've lost in 2014 and never run in 2018, meaning Bill Nelson wins again...so two Florida losses prevented in one moment).

Democrats cannot win every election-it's not possible, and quite frankly it shouldn't be possible.  But Democrats frequently leave election victories on the table because they seem to be convinced that winning by inches doesn't count...the only way that it counts is an undisputed, immediate victory.  But as Clinton's graph clearly illustrated-that's not how it works.  You win as many victories as you can, in hopes of not just getting to your end goal, but also by knowing that every additional Democrat you elect, you win a better seat at the table.  In an increasingly partisan era, every new Democrat brings your legislation further to the left (even if they're a moderate) as long as they're beating a Republican.  With winning elections, it's almost always a game of quantity, not quality.

Sunday, April 02, 2023

Five Thoughts on Donald Trump's Indictment

This past week, it was confirmed to the press that former President Donald Trump will be indicted in connection to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, with whom he allegedly had an affair during his current/third marriage.  These payments would've taken place just weeks before the 2016 election, which Trump won by a total of 80k votes in tightly-competitive contests in Michigan, Pennsylvania, & Wisconsin.  This is the first time that a former president has been indicted (though history nerds will point out that President Grant was arrested while in office for speeding in a carriage).  

This is a huge deal.  Trump is not only a former president, but is also the leading Republican nominee for the White House in 2024, meaning that this has potentially serious implications for the next presidential election in addition to featuring one of the country's most well-known citizens on trial with a tabloid-heaven subject matter.  We still are figuring out the ramifications of this, and even the details of the charges are not yet clear, but I wanted to do one of our "five thoughts" articles as much for myself to wrap my head around it as to share my thoughts with you.

1. Trump is in Uncharted Territory, But It's Not Clear this Hurts Him in the Primary

As I said above, Donald Trump will be the first president (sitting or otherwise) in over 150 years to be indicted on criminal charges.  It cannot be stressed enough we don't know what the charges are, or if they are limited completely to his relationship with Daniels.  The grand jury has called former National Enquirer Chairman David Pecker twice to testify, which could indicate that some charges might relate to Trump's relationship with Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also received payments in relation to an alleged affair with Trump immediately prior to the 2016 election.  The scope of these charges is a big deal, because it will shape public opinion on the trial.  This should hopefully not impact whether he's declared innocent or guilty, but having multiple stories to pursue is going to be a bigger deal and make it harder for Trump's presidential campaign, which is very much in full swing, to control the narrative.

The narrative could also shift as this was not the case most experts expected to get an indictment.  The justice department cases related to January 6th and to the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, as well as the election tampering case in Georgia were considered more likely to involve charges...not to mention the ongoing civil suit from E. Jean Carroll which will go to trial in April.  Now that Trump is under trial, there's less precedent in some of these other investigations to also go to trial, though there is always a political risk-it's possible that having to fight a half dozen cases at once will have the public sympathizing with Trump...

2. 
It's Clear the Republicans Are Not Prepared For This

...but it's also probable that this is a potential catastrophe in waiting for Republicans.  Republicans, even some whom you wouldn't expect like Jeb Bush, were quick to run to defend Trump when the indictments were announced even before their contents were known, with Republicans threatening investigations into Alvin Bragg, the New District Attorney who brought the charges.  It's probable that this is a plea to their base who considers Trump to be a type of deity to show them they're "fighting against this" by proclaiming it unprecedented (more on that in a second), but it also invites two really big side effects that I think they're under-thinking in the wake of a momentary payoff with voters (i.e. this has to be good for fundraising-Trump alone has supposedly raised over $4 million since the indictment announcement).

First, they don't know how big of an issue this is.  It's possible they are defending something truly indefensible right now.  It's possible they don't care, but they should.  Donald Trump is the Republican frontrunner in 2024, and the longer they defend him, the more likely it is that he'll become the nominee, regardless of what happens here.  People like Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, & Nikki Haley rushed to Trump's side, even though this is a clear place for them to basically say "I like the guy, but he's too toxic to win as our nominee."  Republican candidates for president have to find a way to draw a distinction with Trump even outside of this indictment-that's how primaries work, and a failure to do so in 2016 caused him to win.  Waiting for him to implode has been something that Republican voters have shown over four election cycles they don't care about, even if it means they lose.

3. The Republicans Could Be Headed for Disaster

The second thing to consider is just how bad this could get. It sometimes gets lost in these conversations, but Trump lost the 2020 election, and would have to pickup at least three of the six closest Biden states from 2020 (some combination of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia, & Arizona) while not losing his tightest state which is very much in reach for Biden against a weakened opponent (North Carolina).

My thought process early on is that the public will not be super sympathetic to Trump's position, even if his base will.  Republicans have been saying this "hands him the election" but it doesn't, not the general election at least.  The idea that political investigations always backfire is largely connected to the Bill Clinton impeachment.  But Clinton had two things going for him that Trump did not.  First, he was more popular than Trump is, even at the nadir of the investigations (unlike Trump, Clinton would've won another term after his impeachment).  And second, Clinton's PR team did a very good job of making it seem like he was being punished for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, not for lying under oath.  The American public thought this was something that his wife should be mad about, but that they didn't play a part in it.  I struggle to think that Trump will be disciplined enough to follow that line-of-thinking (partially because unlike Clinton he has not confessed, to date, to the affairs with Daniels & McDougal).  Thirdly, the bribery aspect becomes more extreme-Lewinsky was not paid off by anyone connected to the Clinton camp, and therefore there's a different element that is untested here.  And lastly, Trump's other criminal cases compound the argument here-Clinton was not facing dozens of investigations when he was trying to get the public on his side during the Lewinsky affair.

What could be happening here is the Republicans, by backing Trump, are essentially giving him a gilded path to the nomination.  There will be a point where DeSantis, Pence, & Haley simply no longer have a path forward, and have to concede; that's a few months away, but it's not as far as you'd think.  Trump, even in the best of circumstances, is a tough sell for a third general election.  While most focus on the Cleveland/Harrison races when it comes to presidential rematches (because they're sexier and allowed a president win back office), they ignore that the last two presidential rematches (Eisenhower/Stevenson and McKinley/Bryan) ended with the same guy winning both times, and most presidents who tried to win back the White House (Van Buren, Grant, Fillmore, Teddy Roosevelt) lost those attempts.  This is a tough sell to the American public.  So what the Republicans are signing themselves up for is a tarnished nominee, one far weaker than he was in 2016 & 2020, going up against Joe Biden in an election where they'll have to win over huge swaths of Biden voters to their party not just to take back the White House, but to keep the House.  That's dangerous ground to be standing upon, and refusing to cut ties with Trump may well lead to the Democrats getting another term in the White House.

4. Thinking of Hillary Clinton

It's hard not to think of Hillary Clinton in all of this.  On the one hand, it has to be a bit of a "Cersei drinking the wine" moment to know that Trump is finally being held accountable to the crimes committed during her campaign against him, crimes she has been trumpeting even as some Democrats wanted to move past them.

On the other side, it cannot be denied that, if these charges are true, that Clinton suffered far graver consequences than anyone, even Trump, involved in this case.  It is probable that in the wake of the Access Hollywood tapes, Trump having to admit to affairs with an adult film star (and possibly a Playboy model if McDougal's affair is also in these indictments) would've cost him the election.  When people say these aren't "serious" charges, that's the thing you need to think about, because they were, in fact, serious charges-they, if true, illegally covered a scandal that would've changed the outcome of a presidency that ended up giving the Supreme Court an enormous amount of power for the conservative wing.  Clinton gets in, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett likely are still on lower courts right now, while Merrick Garland is sitting on the Court preserving Roe vs. Wade.  Not to mention the country officially has our first female president, one far more competent to be able to handle the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, which Trump's administration mishandled to the point where reports indicated 40% of the deaths during the pandemic were avoidable.  These crimes had a profound effect on history, and therefore should be treated very seriously.  And all of that has to be a really sad reality for Clinton to face-that she was essentially cheated out of the White House by criminal activity from her opponent.  That is what's unprecedented here, and something no court case will ever be able to undo.

5. This Proves Gerald Ford Wrong

The last thing I want to say from an historical perspective is that this truly proves that Gerald Ford was wrong to pardon Richard Nixon.  Historians have ebbed-and-flowed on this.  Ford initially was punished (it's possible not pardoning Nixon would've won him the 1976 election), but by the early 2000's he won a Profile in Courage Award for pardoning Nixon, with many (including liberal icon Ted Kennedy) claiming that it helped heal the country.

That, this week, proved to be wrong.  Ford's pardoning of Nixon, in my opinion, led to Presidents Reagan & Bush condoning (if not illegally supporting) the actions that led to the Iran-Contra and Torture Memo scandals under each respective president, and of course led to Trump's many criminal enterprises.  Nixon not being held responsible made it seem like no president would be held responsible, and indeed, Republicans across the country are claiming that Trump's indictment sets a precedent that will mean all presidents will be charged for political reasons going forward.  In reality, this is not political.  We will see if there is evidence of wrongdoing, but I suspect given the high-bar of such a case, Bragg likely has that evidence.  What was political was Ford trying to move on from Nixon, and the fallout from that led to Donald Trump flagrantly abusing power and continually bending (likely breaking) the law in order to hold and then keep power.  In a world where Ford didn't pardon Nixon, would Trump have even run in the first place?  A question that belongs to the ages, but I suspect the answer is no.

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

12 Famous Unsolved Political Deaths

We have done a trio of articles about the most famous (and infamous) Hollywood murders that you can read here, here, and here, but I decided after three go-arounds with this series we'd sort of exhausted our options.  True crime discussions are endless (human nature makes sure of that), but the Hollywood stories that were remaining either had too little intrigue (they were either solved or seemingly had little to do with the Hollywood figure at the center of the crime), or were too tangentially-related to the movies (if you try hard enough, pretty much any crime in Los Angeles has a connection to the entertainment industry).

However, we don't just write about the movies on this blog, so we're going to do a one-time spinoff of this series with a fourth and final (unless something bizarre happens where I feel the need to write about it, I don't think any other crime articles will be here so this will be a series with a proper finale) look at crimes in American politics.  All of the stories we'll profile today are related in some fashion to politicians or political figures, and are long unsolved.

Writing about political mysteries presents its own unique challenges.  For starters, there aren't as many of them-most political crimes have been solved, and so even to get to twelve, we're going to have to get to at least one famous unsolved death, and only a couple of crimes that are confirmed homicides.  Secondly, it's weird discussing crimes because not only is the crime a horrible homicide, it's frequently an indictment on the beliefs of the person, and so it feels like an attack on other people's belief systems, and so it feels more personal.  I wasn't sure if I should write this from a sensitivity standpoint, but figured if we stuck to this in an analytical sort of way, it would feel okay.  I'm aware though that there's a heightened sensitivity to discussion of these crimes, and wanted to acknowledge that before we begin.

Which brings us to the third point-politics invites both passion, but also conspiracy theories.  Some of these crimes are among the most speculated about in American history.  We will discuss today, of course, the Kennedy assassination, which has literally filled entire books, but also crimes connected to presidents, organized labor, foreign governments, and high-ranking officials.  I'll make a point of separating fact from theory from total fiction, but if you're interested in learning more about these crimes or these figures, know that discussion of them gets bizarre depending on what corners of the web you head toward, and not all of it is steeped in evidence or the truth.  With that said, as a reminder this is discussing some heavy subject matter so if you are squeamish about such things, proceed with caution.

Rep. Nick Begich (D-AK), left, with House Majority Leader
Hale Boggs (D-LA)
Hale Boggs & Nick Begich

The DC Connection: Boggs was the House Majority Leader and Begich was a first-term congressman from Alaska.
The Death(?): On October 16, 1972, Boggs and Begich were on a flight from Anchorage to Juneau with two other men (the pilot and one of Begich's aides).  Boggs was out campaigning for Begich, who was in a tough re-election with State Sen. Don Young.  The plane disappeared, and despite exhaustive recovery efforts, neither the plane nor the four men on board were ever found.  They were declared legally dead on December 29th, 1972.
Why It's Unsolved: Unlike the other deaths listed here, there's no evidence that foul play was involved in the deaths of Boggs, Begich, and the other two men on board their flight.  What's bizarre about this is some of the things that happened afterwards.  For starters, as you're going to see in a number of these stories, Boggs had a massive connection to the Kennedy Family, and specifically the Kennedy assassination as a member of the Warren Commission.  Boggs was also highly critical of the FBI, calling for J. Edgar Hoover's resignation, and accusing the FBI of tapping the phones of members of Congress.  This invites a lot of room for conspiracy theories (the Kennedy assassination and the career of J. Edgar Hoover being breeding grounds for such things), but there are odd quirks about this case that should puzzle people.  Specifically, after Boggs & Begich disappeared, there was a tip called in stating that they knew the location of the flight that came from a number that a reporter found would later (and may have at the time) been associated with a pro-life conservative group with connections to then-President Richard Nixon.  Boggs had also reported two years earlier an attempt on his life where someone had tried to run him off the road.  And in the immediate aftermath of the crash, there were radio operators in Northern California who claimed (independently-multiple accounts here) that they heard of survivors of a crash.  The fact that no one has been able to tie together these loose ends, particularly the phone call and its weird connection to Nixon (who was a political foe of Boggs'), is unusual, and the lack of evidence forty years later of any bodies or plane keep this tragedy shrouded in mystery.
John Middleton Clayton
The DC Connection: At the time of his death, Clayton was involved in a tempestuous election against Rep. Clifton Breckenridge for an Arkansas congressional seat; he had also been a prominent member of the Arkansas state legislature.
The Murder: Clayton was a Republican state legislator in the late 1880's, who was in the middle of a contentious battle that has been described as one of the most corrupt in American history.  Clayton was initially declared the loser, but this was partially driven by a group of masked men stealing a ballot box from a predominantly black precinct (Clayton had overwhelming support from African-Americans). Before Clayton could successfully contest the election, he was shot & killed on January 29, 1889, through the window of a boardinghouse.
Why It's Unsolved: Clayton was definitely murdered, so that's not the unsolved part here-it's simply that his killer was never found, and from what I can find there's not really any suspects.  The circumstances of his death, considering that Arkansas politics at this time was deeply violent, suggest that he was killed in retaliation for contesting the election, but there's no proof of that-it's possible this was a complete coincidence.  Clayton was, it's worth noting, eventually declared the winner of the election by the House, but Breckenridge won the next election and held the seat until 1894, when he resigned to join the Cleveland administration

Jeffrey Epstein


The DC Connection: While Epstein himself was not a politician, he sure did run with a lot of them.  Among those who were his social acquaintance were Presidents Donald Trump & Bill Clinton, as well as former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The Murder(?): Talking about Epstein is inviting a horror show in the comments section, as discussions of him are a breeding ground for conspiracies, and as a result, more than anyone on this list, this might be the most challenging to discuss factually.  Essentially here's why this is considered a potential homicide.  Epstein, under trial, had been put on suicide watch three weeks before his death.  He was taken off of suicide watch, and was assigned a cellmate, but on the evening of his death on August 9th, he was not with a cellmate, and he was not looked in on every thirty minutes by a guard (as was required).  Instead the guards (who fell asleep) left Epstein alone for three hours.  When he was discovered, he had died of what Attorney General William Barr would call an "apparent suicide," likely caused as a result of hanging (using a sheet from his bunk bed).  
Why It's Unsolved: There are several major problems with the Epstein death's timeline, first that such a high-profile inmate would be essentially not looked on regularly feels like a stretch of credulity.  Considering the high profile nature of Epstein's crimes and whom they involved, that trained guards wouldn't follow protocol (and would literally fall asleep on the job) feels like an eyebrow raise.  Additionally, Epstein's injuries, particularly his broken hyoid bone, are more commonly associated with strangulation than suicide.  But more critically to the festering corners of the internet's most ardent conspiracy theorists is that Epstein's associations with some of the most powerful men on earth (not just the four I listed above, but also Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, Larry Summers, Harvey Weinstein, and, yes, even the aforementioned Bill Barr) buttressed agains the heinous nature of his crimes (he ran a child prostitution ring), would leave a lot of room for a lot of people to not want Epstein to speak publicly.

William Goebel


The DC Connection: DC connection isn't really a thing here, as Goebel never worked in the nation's capitol (from what I can tell).  However, he was a high-ranking politician, serving as Governor of Kentucky at the time of his death.
The Murder: The Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899, like John Middleton Clayton's above, was one of the most notorious of the late-19th Century.  Goebel had faced State Attorney General William S. Taylor, and immediately after the election, it appeared that Taylor had won (despite the state being overwhelmingly Democratic and Taylor being a Republican).  Taylor was sworn in, but the state legislature was in the process of voting to overturn the election on January 30th, 1899, and considering the partisan lean of the state legislature, it was assumed that they would make Goebel the governor.  However, that morning Goebel was shot outside of the State Capitol, and taken to the hospital.  The state legislature did overturn the election results, making Goebel the governor, but it was too late-he would die less than a week later as a result of the shooting on February 3rd, becoming the only governor in American history to be assassinated.
Why It's Unsolved: It was largely assumed at the time that either Taylor or one of his supporters (principally Taylor's Secretary of State Caleb Powers) had some involvement in Goebel's death.  Taylor was never questioned on this, since he moved to Indiana quickly after, and the governor there refused to honor an extradition request.  While several of the men who were involved with the campaign were convicted of involvement, historical evidence of the crimes seem to indicate we'll likely never know who ultimately killed Goebel, and if Governor Taylor was involved with the crime.

Thomas Hindman

The DC Connection: Hindman was a one-term congressman from Arkansas, but is better-known to historians for his role in the Civil War, where he served as a major-general for the Confederate Army.
The Murder: On September 27, 1868, Hindman was shot to death at his home while reading to his children.  He survived long enough afterward to make plans for his wife and family while giving a heartfelt deathbed speech on his front porch, and then passing away at the age of 40.
Why It's Unsolved: Despite being a high profile figure in Arkansas, no one ever was charged with or convicted of killing Hindman, but a few theories continue to surround his death over 100 years later.  The chief one was that Hindman's death was related to a debate against Governor Clayton Powell, who was anti-slavery in a state that still was angry about the changes that were happening at the time due to losing the Civil War.  Rumors persisted that a black man had killed Hindman as retribution for a recent killing in his hometown of Helena of a black man, but there was no evidence of this (and in that era, if there had been any evidence, it would have surely led to an arrest, even if the evidence was flimsy).  As a result, Hindman's murderer remains unknown, with him being one of the most prominent politicians in American history to have been assassinated without even a trial resulting from his death.

Jimmy Hoffa


The DC Connection: Hoffa was the most storied member of the Teamsters, and a national fixture for decades.  He had complex relationships with both the Kennedys (who put him in jail) and the Nixon administration (which got him out of jail, just to watch that largely backfire in the years that followed).
The Murder(?): Hoffa disappeared on July 30th, 1975, after meeting with two high profile figures in the mafia (Anthony Provenzano and Anthony Giacalone).  Eyewitness reports of his last known appearances appear to have been at about 3 PM that day-he had called his wife, saying he would be home for supper (he did not show), and at least some witnesses reported seeing him as late as 2:30 that day.  Hoffa was never seen again alive, and was declared legally dead seven years after he disappeared.
Why It's Unsolved: Obviously, we don't know ultimately what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.  His body was never found, and we cannot confirm that he was, in fact, murdered.  But it is largely assumed that Hoffa, considering his longtime connections with organized crime, was killed by the mob.  The most common theory is that crime boss Russell Bufalino ordered the hit on Hoffa, and it was carried out by one of his men.  The film The Irishman largely follows this theory, assuming that professional hitman Frank Sheeran killed Hoffa, though there are those who dispute this story.  Regardless, Hoffa's legacy remains deeply associated with this disappearance, with some calling him a hero of the labor movement while others calling him an outright criminal.

Leon Jordan


The DC Connection: Again, Jordan isn't a DC politician, but a state-level one-he was a prominent Civil Rights activist in Missouri who eventually served three terms in the Missouri House of Representatives before he was murdered.
The Murder: Jordan was murdered on the morning of July 15, 1970.  He was outside of Green Duck Tavern in Kansas City, and was shot by a rifle by what appeared to be three African-American men (according to eyewitnesses at the time).  Jordan appears to have died immediately, at the age of 65.
Why It's Unsolved: No one was ever formally charged in the murder of Leon Jordan.  The rifle that was involved in the crime had been stolen from a hardware store years earlier, but while several men were arrested, no one was ultimately charged.  A Kansas City Star report in 2010 shockingly showed that the murder weapon involved in Jordan's death had actually entered back into circulation, and was found in the trunk of a police car as a result.  Their report indicated that Jordan's death may have been the result of a mob hit from Nicholas Civella, a leader of organized crime in Kansas City in the 1970's, but as everyone involved in their report had already died, no one faced trial, and Jordan's death is still officially unsolved.

John F. Kennedy


The DC Connection: I mean, if you have to ask...but John F. Kennedy was a congressman, senator, and eventually the 35th President of the United States.
The Murder: On November 22nd, 1963, President Kennedy was shot twice during a parade in Dallas, Texas, while riding in a car with his wife Jacqueline, Governor John Connally, and his wife Nellie.  Kennedy died instantaneously, while Gov. Connally sustained non-fatal injuries as a result of the attack.  Mrs. Connally reportedly heard Kennedy's last words, after she stated "well, Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you" to which he replied "No, you certainly can't."
Why It's Unsolved: Okay, so there are literally hundreds of books about the Kennedy assassination, many of them centered around whether Lee Harvey Oswald, who is the only credited person in the assassination (and who was subsequently assassinated by Jack Ruby) could have acted alone, a lot of which is predicated on the "single bullet theory" that the same bullet struck both President Kennedy & Governor Connally, something that both Governor & Mrs. Connally disputed the rest of their lives (essentially, the technology would not have been there to have both Kennedy & Connally being shot by two separate bullets, so if there were, indeed, two separate bullets, Oswald could not have acted alone).  If there was a second gunman, he or she was never found, and the official (but heavily disputed) stance is that Oswald acted alone.  In terms of his motives, it's also not clear, and conspiracy theories have raged for decades that everyone from the FBI to the Mafia to Vice President Johnson to Cuban President Fidel Castro was somehow involved in President Kennedy's death, arguably the most-analyzed crime in human history.

Chandra Levy


The DC Connection: Levy was an intern at the Federal Bureau of Prisons who, prior to her death, was purportedly having an affair with California Congressman Gary Condit.
The Murder: Levy disappeared at the age of 24 on May 1, 2001.  Her disappearance was not reported until May 6th, when her parents told police they had not heard from their daughter in five days.  Both Levy's father and aunt told police that their daughter had been having an affair with Rep. Condit.  When they went to Levy's apartment, they found that her credit cards, cell phone, & suitcases (which were partially packed) were still there, indicating that she had not fled.  On May 22nd, 2002, Levy's body was found in a DC-area park, and medical examiner's officially declared Levy's death a homicide, potentially caused by strangulation (though due to the lapse between her death and finding the body, it was impossible to know for sure).
Why It's Unsolved: If you were alive during this time frame, you know that the principle suspect in the crime (in the media's eyes) for a long time frame was Gary Condit, as he was on the front page of every tabloid newspaper in America for months.  However, most subsequent investigations centered around Ingmar Guandique, who had been in custody twice for attacking women in the same park that Levy was eventually found.  According to Guandique's cellmate, he confessed to the Levy murder, claiming it was an accident, but later tape recordings brought the cellmate's testimony into question, and Guandique was later deported back to his native El Salvador.  As of 2021, no one has officially been charged with the death of Chandra Levy, and Gary Condit, who at 73 is still alive, has never officially acknowledged their affair.

Larry McDonald

The DC Connection: McDonald was a controversial congressman from Georgia, most famous for his hard-right politics (despite being a Democrat).  At one point he was voted the second most conservative member of Congress in the 20th Century, behind only Ron Paul.
The Murder(?): Okay, this one's a weird one so bare with me.  Larry McDonald was invited, along with several other members of Congress, to go to South Korea to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the end of the Korean War.  He was to be joined by Sens. Jesse Helms (R-NC) & Steve Symms (R-ID), as well as Rep. Carroll Hubbard (D-KY)  Weather separated the men, though, with McDonald being stuck at JFK by himself, eventually settling for Korean Air Lines Flight 007.  Symms & Hubbard both gave up on attending due to the weather, while Helms wasn't able to join McDonald on the plane because of delays.  Helms tried to get McDonald to join him on his own flight when the two men were together in Anchorage on a layover, but McDonald remained sleeping on his plane.  On September 1, 1983, KAL 007 was shot down on its flight from Anchorage to Seoul because it deviated from its flight plane, in the process entering prohibited Soviet airspace.  Everyone on board died.  Initially the Soviets denied shooting down the plane, and then accused the United States of entering their air space as an act of aggression.  Eventually tempers simmered with the United States changing public policy regarding their GPS system and flights from Alaska, but this was generally considering one of the most frightening moments of the Cold War.
Why It's Unsolved: Here's the deal-when you have a plane carrying a controversial member of Congress get shot down by a foreign power at the height of the Cold War, you're going to get conspiracy theories, particularly considering Symms, Hubbard, & Helms all avoided getting on the plane through truly random acts of fate.  Some people in the John Birch Society even go so far as to claim McDonald didn't actually die in the crash.  But there's no actual evidence that this was anything more than the official stance of both the American & Soviet governments...though I list this because it's a deeply unusual death that still has its own chapters around the internet.

Mary Pinchot Meyer


The DC Connection: Meyer was the former wife of CIA official Cord Meyer, but her most noted DC connection was as one of the lovers of President John F. Kennedy.
The Murder: Meyer was murdered on October 12, 1964, near the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in DC.  Reportedly she had been shot at point-blank by an unidentified African-American man, according to several witnesses who had supposedly seen Meyer while she was on her walk.
Why It's Unsolved: The only person ever charged with Meyer's death was a black man who had been found, wet, on the path near where Meyer was murdered named Ray Crump.  However, there was never any evidence to associate Crump with the murder (and the gun was never found), so with Crump acquitted, the case remains unsolved.  Occum's razor suggests that Meyer, an attractive, wealthy woman, was likely killed in connection with either a sexual assault or robbery that escalated, but because of her associations with the Kennedy family, obviously this invites additional conspiracies, particularly since Meyer purportedly kept a diary during the time of her affair with the president that was (purportedly) later destroyed by CIA Chief James Angleton, an allegation brought forth by Meyer's brother-in-law Ben Bradlee, who would soon after her death become executive editor of the The Washington Post.

Tom Wales


The DC Connection: Wales was the former college roommate of Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II, and was a famed gun control advocate when he died.
The Murder: On October 11, 2001, Wales was shot in his home in Seattle.  An assailant had crept into Wales' backyard, and killed him with a handgun through a window looking into Wales' office.  The suspect seen fleeing the scene was supposedly male.
Why It's Unsolved: No one has ever been tried in the death of Tom Wales, believed to be the only federal prosecutor in American history to be assassinated.  It is not entirely clear if Wales' job, particularly as a gun control advocate, may have been one of the reasons behind his being assassinated, or if this is just a coincidence.  In 2018, though, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced an increase in the reward for Wales killer, and the FBI admitted that year that Wales may have been the victim of a contract killer, adding credence to the idea that Wales' death was the result of a conspiracy, potentially related to his role as an attorney.

Saturday, February 01, 2020

Bernie Sanders Has a Surrogate Problem

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
If you've been on Twitter in the past 24 hours, and you're a Democrat, you have seen the video.  Two days before the Iowa caucuses, with tensions flaring high (every poll shows a close race between Joe Biden & Bernie Sanders, with the campaigns of Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, & Amy Klobuchar flirting between "surprise winner" and "irrelevant"), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) was at a rally event for Sen. Sanders where the subject of Hillary Clinton came up.  Several members of the audience booed, with the moderator quickly moving to quell the reaction, but Tlaib encouraged it, stating "No, no, I'm gonna boo-Boo!-you all know I can't be quiet.  We're going to boo.  That's all right, that's all right-the haters are gonna shut up on Monday when we win."  She said this while the two other women on her panel, Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) laughed, seemingly in agreement with the sentiment.

This...is bad.  Really, really bad.  Tlaib has since issued an apology, though one that feels less genuine and more politically expedient (it includes the lines "I allowed my disappointment with Secretary Clinton's latest comments about Senator Sanders and his supporters get the best of me," seemingly blaming Clinton for her own behavior toward Clinton's supporters), but in my opinion this opens up a really ugly reality in the Democratic Party that "we're not supposed to talk about"-that most Democrats still have wounds that have not healed from the 2016 election.  Well, since Rashida Tlaib brought it front-and-center, I'm going to take the chance to talk about it.

It is impossible to tell why Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election in 2016.  Everything from Russian interference to James Comey can be blamed.  There is certainly blame to go around for the loss in Clinton's campaign.  Polls showed her race in Michigan tightening (and from the sounds of it similar polls were coming out of Wisconsin), but she made only one trip to the former and none to the latter in the days before the election; this feels like foolish hubris in hindsight, assuming that these states were in the bag when they clearly weren't.  But as a Democrat, it's hard not to take into account Sen. Sanders' behavior toward Clinton as one of the culprits as to why we currently have Donald Trump as our president.

Sanders' supporters did defect to Trump, though not in historically atypical levels.  A survey by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study pegged the number at about 12% of Sanders' primary voters going for Trump; this isn't an unusually high number, but it was consequential (in all likelihood Clinton would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin had these defectors not voted or voted for her, enough to win the White House).  More importantly, it was clear as early as March of 2016 that Sanders had lost the nomination, and that his continued presence was doing nothing but sewing division amongst the Democratic voters, but he stayed in the race, not endorsing Clinton until July, a full month after the last primaries in the District of Columbia, by which time she had mathematically achieved the nomination (and didn't need the "superdelegates" to do so).  Sanders' lack of party unity was noted, and it was felt at the convention.  Not only was Clinton booed by his supporters during the convention, but so to were seemingly universally-beloved figures like John Lewis & Michelle Obama.  It was bad enough that at one point, comedian Sarah Silverman pronounced "to the Bernie or Bust people-you're being ridiculous."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sanders, as a result, is a polarizing figure in the Democratic Party.  There are people who adore him, clearly, but there are people who, rationally or not, loathe him for hurting Clinton in 2016.   This hasn't been quelled in 2020, with Sanders doing little to stop surrogates like Tlaib from attacking his chief political opponents in seemingly underhanded ways, particularly mass posting about candidates like Warren or Biden on Facebook, or leading the #NeverWarren campaign on social media.  One of the main reasons I wish both Sanders and Clinton had skipped this race is that I don't think there's an easy solve here.  I think that a significant number of Sanders people will always hate Clinton for depriving them of a chance to stop Trump in 2016, and I think that a significant number of Clinton people will always loathe the Sanders campaign for inviting discord into a party that was clearly headed toward a tough general election against the worst foe they'd ever faced.  Initially this seemed like it might even happen-no one assumed Sanders would be the frontrunner in 2020, and for months it looked more like Joe Biden (taking the role of Hillary Clinton) and Elizabeth Warren (taking the role of Bernie Sanders) would run a similar, less divisive campaign, and the victor would more readily endorse, giving the Democrats a strong chance against Donald Trump in what is going to be a tough election.

But that's not happening.  Warren's chances have slid dramatically, and at best for those who want to avoid 2016, Biden is going to be fighting Sanders in a similar style to Clinton, rather than having two new names in the contest.  It's also very possible (it is, as I've stated before, my guess) that Sanders will be the nominee in 2020.  If that's the case, he and Tlaib and all of the other Sanders' supporters need to realize something-it's not as easy as saying "shut up and support the nominee."  That clearly didn't work in 2016, and it won't work in 2020.  Sanders will not only need his supporters to come out full-force, he'll need the people who voted for Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and hell, even Mike Bloomberg, to get out and vote for him in the general.  And yes, he's going to need the most ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton from 2016 to endorse his campaign.

That's not going to happen with comments like this.  It's not going to happen with your surrogates laughing and mocking the volunteers and voters you're going to need to win.  Politics is personal, and many people spent years trying to get Hillary Clinton elected as president-those people are going to need to be on your side in November if you want to win more than a nomination.  It might not be fair to have Clinton denouncing Sanders, but here's the thing-politics ain't fair.  The difference between Sanders in 2016 & Sanders in 2020 is that Sanders had no shot of being the nominee in 2016 and has a decent shot of it in 2020.  Hillary Clinton has nothing to lose in 2020-Bernie sanders does, and it's time he & his campaign start acting like it.  Joe Biden & Elizabeth Warren are doing that-they're running a campaign where (if they win) they'll be able to use their coalitions to actually take the White House.  Bernie Sanders is not, and as illustrated by Rashida Tlaib and multiple other surrogates throughout this primary, his campaign has not graduated to a place where it understands that there's a difference between making a point and winning.  If Bernie Sanders intends to become the next president, he needs to figure out a way to mend this riff between he and the other factions of the Democratic Party, and to control his surrogates, because there's nothing the Democratic Party hates more than a general election candidate who can't win.  I believe I know a woman he can call who can vouch for such a reality.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Electoral College Streaks

We are now less than 300 days away from the presidential election, and as a result you're going to continue hearing a lot more about the electoral college in the upcoming months.  We've discussed this a lot on this blog, with the big focus in recent months being on who is most likely to be the "most important state" (expect a follow-up on that article at some point in the near future, since there has been some rearranging on the list), but as we (read: me) also love political trivia on this blog, I thought it would be fun to take a look at the electoral college's elasticity in recent years.

We all know the concept of a swing state, places like Florida and Wisconsin that consistently decide our elections, but swing states are not a constant-they change over time (unless you're Pennsylvania, then you just always get to decide who wins, apparently).  I thought it might be interesting to take a look at current electoral-college streaks-which states are the most devoted to their parties, and which states might be more likely to go in a different direction in the near or far future.  Below we'll find every state that is looking at a 20+ year gap since they last voted for the other party.

Honorable Mention: This is focused on states, but it's worth noting the only place that has a "perfect" record of supporting only one party is the District of Columbia, and considering its strong left-leaning history, that may continue forever.

Worth Noting: All things considered, the electoral college has stayed relatively stagnant since 2000.  Only thirteen states have voted for two different parties statewide since the beginning of the millennium: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, & Wisconsin.  Not all of these states are considered "swing" states now (Indiana and New Mexico will not be on the table for the opposing party in 2020), but it does show a surprising inelasticity to the electoral college.

1996

Last Time States Voted Republican: None
Last Time States Voted Democrat: Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia
Thoughts on These States: Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to be able to win even a chunk of the South, using his all-Southern ticket (he's from Arkansas, Gore's from Tennessee) to win the White House.  Gore's inability to translate at least a couple of these states (principally his home state of Tennessee and once-perennial swing state Missouri) was costly-if he'd won either of these states in 2000, we likely wouldn't have known anything about hanging chads and Katherine Harris, as he wouldn't have needed Florida to become president.  With the obvious exception of Arizona, none of these states look remotely competitive in 2020.

1992

Last Time States Voted Republican: None
Last Time States Voted Democrat: Georgia, Montana
Thoughts on These States: Clinton's two landslide victories are the last chances Democrats are going to have for a while to end some long streaks here.  Georgia is honestly surprising that he didn't win in it in 1996 (since we certainly think of that as a more achievable victory for the Democrats today than a state like Kentucky or West Virginia), but he got within two points of winning there in 1996.  Montana is a weird state in that it used to be much more progressive on the federal level (regularly sending Democrats to the Senate), but has been pretty red in years since despite the occasional close call (1996, 2008).

1988

Last Time States Voted Republican: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont
Last Time States Voted Democrat: None
Thoughts on These States: We're going to wipe out pretty much every state from a Democratic-winning streak in the next two elections, and this is one of the main reasons why Democrats get leery about nominating a Massachusetts Democrat to the White House-it tends to go horribly wrong.  Dukakis actually came relatively close in a few of these states (he lost Illinois, Vermont, Maryland, and California by less than 4-points), but this was a bloodbath for the Democrats.  After nominating liberals in two straight shut-outs, there was a reason the more moderate Bill Clinton was appealing in 1992.

1984

Last Time States Voted Republican: Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington
Last Time States Voted Democrat: None
Thoughts on These States: Mondale is one of only two politicians in the modern era to lose all-but-one state, and honestly it wasn't even that close in the states that he did win.  Massachusetts and Rhode Island are the only ones of these states he lost by less than 5-points, and the one state he did win he won by less-than-a-point.  Hawaii, now unthinkable as a red state, went to Reagan by 12-points.  While Oregon has occasionally been close since then, it's unlikely any of these are defecting any time soon.

1976

Last Time States Voted Republican: None
Last Time States Voted Democrat: Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas
Thoughts on These States: 1980 was another Democratic bloodbath, so we didn't see any switches there since we've only got one state left to track.  1976 proved the last moment the Democrats were able to rely upon the once solid-blue South to win an election, as Southerner Jimmy Carter was able to buck the sudden red wave that would sweep the region.  Texas is seen by some as going eventually blue, but these have been steadfast Republican states for over 40 years, so it'll be interesting to see what eventually makes them break the tide.

1972

Last Time States Voted Republican: Minnesota
Last Time States Voted Democrat: None
Thoughts on These States: Minnesota stands unique amongst all other states as the only state to never vote for a Reagan or a Bush.  It was, if you look at the margins in 1972, the closest state to flipping to the other side, though it wasn't that close (McGovern, looking at it, may have lost by a more damning electoral college landslide than even Mondale).  Minnesota occasionally flirts with going red (1984, 2004, & 2016 all came close), but has never gone GOP since, and if Trump's approval ratings stay where they are, it'll be a struggle to flip it in 2020, thanks in large part to the Twin Cities outweighing the increasingly dark red rural regions.

1964

Last Time States Voted Republican: None
Last Time States Voted Democrat: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Thoughts on These States: These are the immobile nine, the Republican states that have not wavered since Barry Goldwater made it impossible for them to go red.  It's actually stunning to watch how consistently red these states are as only four of these states have been within 5-points since 1964.  Both North Dakota and Oklahoma were within 5-points during Carter's 1976 election (looking at that election, while it easily could have gone to Ford, it just as easily could have been a blowout for Carter).  Alaska was within reach for Hubert Humphrey in 1968, but only because George Wallace did so well as a third-party candidate that year.  The only state to flirt multiple times with switching is now-ruby red South Dakota, as it was within 5-points in 1976, 1992, and 1996.  Of the bunch, Kansas is probably most likely to be blue in an "Indiana in 2008" way, but otherwise it'll take a landslide like which we don't see anymore to turn any of these other states blue again.

Friday, October 26, 2018

Trump Deserves the Blame

Wednesday was one of the darkest days in American history.  I'm still, quite frankly, in shock.  Not that this happened, because I think it was sadly something we have been warning about for so long with Donald Trump as president that this was becoming inevitable, but because there is a difference between warning about something happened, saying "this violent rhetoric will eventually lead to something truly, unchangeably, terrible" and seeing it actually happen.

We have become so desensitized to such hateful, terrible things in the Trump presidency that perhaps some people weren't shocked yesterday, their cynicism or need-to-be-brave so close to an election makes them numb or flippant to such things, but I'll be honest-I was shook to my core and genuinely curled up into a ball Wednesday night, not wanting to do anything but stay indoors, glued to the news, in a way I can only remember being at a few tragedies in American history.

This week, a terrorist attacked leaders of the party opposed to the President of the United States, people the president has literally described as his "enemy."  Pipe bombs were sent through the mail to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, John Brennan (the package was sent to CNN headquarters), Eric Holder, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, Robert de Niro, and George Soros.  These people are not arbitrary politicians or public figures.  They are two former presidents, a former vice president (who is also the leading Democratic contender for the White House in 2020), a former secretary of state, a former first lady, two sitting congresswomen (one being a former DNC Chair), a former attorney general, a former CIA Director, a major Democratic fundraiser, and a prominent liberal actor.  They are all Democrats or a key member of a Democratic administration, prominent Trump critics, and people that Trump regularly demeans and attacks with vitriolic hate in his stump speeches and on Twitter.

That Trump's hateful, violent speeches have led to actual violence may be inevitable, but it's worth noting that Trump and Republicans like him deserve the blame for what happened this week, and the media needs to lay it at their feet.  Trump, just days ago, praised Rep. Greg Gianforte in a rally in Missoula, MT, calling him "my guy" in reference to Gianforte's assault of a journalist during his campaign last year.  Ted Cruz, just days ago, was talking about how his opponent (Rep. Beto O'Rourke) could share a cell with Hillary Clinton, one of the victims of yesterday's attacks.  And even after Monday's attack, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (the frontrunner to be the next Republican leader in the House after the elections), still had a pinned tweet attacking Mr. Soros on his verified Twitter page even after Soros has received a pipe bomb.

Trump's rhetoric against the media and the protesters has been violent, hateful, and frequently filled with lies, so the fact that CNN was one of those targeted is petrifying considering it is not only an attack on our leaders, but on the first amendment itself that was perpetrated Wednesday.  And yet just days before our nation exercises its most sacred right, that of choosing our leaders, Trump couldn't control his supporters and his mouth for even 24 hours.  After a scripted statement where he called for unity, Trump couldn't admit that his rhetoric is the clearest culprit here.  No, he didn't send those packages, but that all of the people who received them are people who have been outspoken critics of Trump AND are people he regularly lashes out at in speeches, oftentimes with violent language, is no accident.  Trump had the ability yesterday to say "I made a mistake, I need to work to change the discourse and shoulder some of this blame if we are actually going to unify," but he is incapable of doing so.  Trump's rally in Wisconsin Wednesday night proved that, with him blaming the media for the attacks rather than taking any sort of accountability on his own, going back to attacking reporters the same exact day that CNN got a pipe bomb in the mail.  Republican State Sen. Leah Vukmir, herself running for the US Senate in the state, grinned as the crowd chanted "lock her up" rather than trying to counter them on the same day Hillary Clinton (the "her" that they're referring to), was attacked.  That Republican leaders (cause that's what Trump and Vukmir are), can't even go 24 hours without going after Democrats who were violently attacked by a terrorist is unforgivable and frankly is the final alarm that needs to be rung-if you can't see that yesterday was one of America's darkest days, I don't know how to help you.  Think of it this way-if 11 people from the opposition party were attacked in Russia or China, we'd call it a banana republic or refer to that country as unstable.  That's exactly what happened here-don't just get your coffee like usual, pretending "this is just Trump's America", because if we have to normalize what happened this week, this isn't America at all.  We need to vote in 11 days, as if our civil liberties and lives depended on it, because they do.  Democracy cannot stand if our leaders only care about the people who support them, if protection and rights are only bestowed on those who support the president.  This week Donald Trump showed that he only cares about people who agree with him, and is incapable of feeling compassion for those who don't.  Hopefully in 11 days, he sees that those who don't are louder than those that do, because it's the only message that will get through to him.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Al Franken Needs to Resign

Well, I didn't expect this one either.  Apparently the entire world has decided to rain down hard on my NaNoWriMo month with news I can't ignore, and I will today be talking about Al Franken , amidst a shocking scandal that came from LeeAnn Tweeden, a morning talk show host for TalkRadio in Los Angeles.  Tweeden alleged that Franken, during a USO tour, forcibly kissed her as well as took photos of her while she was sleeping that showed him groping her (or at least reaching to grope her).  The photo, as well as Tweeden's account, seem very legitimate and Franken has publicly apologized, but in light of the many, many recent harassment accounts against a number of well-known public figures, particularly Judge Roy Moore, this could have enormous political fallout depending on how Franken and Democrats handle this situation.  I'm going to outline below five of the more pressing thoughts/responses I have seen based on this, though it is still unfolding at this time.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)
1. From a Moral Perspective, Al Franken Needs to Resign

I don't say this lightly-I've voted for him twice, and he's my US Senator, but unless Franken can provide some other explanation for the photo, I think this disqualifies him as a US Senator.  One could make the argument that there are photos of all of us that we'd prefer didn't exist, but what Franken is doing here is creepy, and coupled with Tweeden's account of him pressuring her into a kiss that she didn't give her consent toward, it feels beneath the dignity of a US Senator.

I want to clarify something, because I've seen it on social media quite a bit here, that Franken (or Moore, or Trump, or Bill Clinton) should be given the benefit of the doubt, that he's "innocent until proven guilty."  That phrase works in court, but shouldn't apply in the court of public opinion, where I feel the burden-of-proof should be (and generally is) considerably lighter.  If there is grounds here for a civil or criminal suit from Tweeden (or if there is an ethics violation from the Senate), that is where "innocent until proven guilty" should be applied, but a US Senator, someone in the public sphere, doesn't get out of the court of public opinion.  He's not a doctor or lawyer or engineer, someone who is bound to his job through a contract with a company-he's a US Senator, who has his job because of the people of Minnesota.  As a result, he should be held to a higher standard than if he's an average person.  And the photo is damning enough here to believe the rest of Tweeden's story, in my opinion-it shows a profound lack of good sense and judgment, and makes me question Franken in general.  This isn't a youthful indiscretion or a crime he committed as a teenager; this isn't a "youthful" by the standards of the media (which is arbitrarily your late 20's, unless you're Donald Trump, Jr., in which case it's apparently 40).  Franken was two years away from being a candidate for the US Senate when this occurred, and was in his mid-50's when this incident occurred.  He knew what he was doing, what the impact of it may be, and while he may regret it, his regret doesn't excuse his behavior.  He should resign from a moral perspective.

2. From a Political Perspective, Al Franken Also Needs to Resign

Have you ever noticed that whenever a Republican sex scandal occurs (and lately, there have been a lot of them), the GOP will throw out "...but Bill Clinton" as if that excuses their behavior.  This is ludicrous, partially because two harms don't make a right, to use the adage, but perhaps more so because Bill Clinton hasn't held political office in sixteen years.  Yes, he is still a prominent member of the party (I would advise that we reconsider having him speak at future DNC's all-things-considered at this point), but he hasn't run for office in over two decades.  You can say his wife did, but I find it a morally bankrupt argument to blame a woman for her husband's misdeeds, and Hillary Clinton has never had a credible attack on her character in terms of adultery, harassment, or a more serious crime like assault.  Bringing up Clinton is the equivalent of saying "but Ronald Reagan" or "but JFK" or "but Warren G. Harding" at this point in my opinion.

Franken, though, is different.  He's a sitting US Senator, someone who stood for reelection just three years ago and is someone who is a current member of the Democratic Caucus in Congress.  Saying "...but Al Franken" has some validity now, because Democrats can't claim the moral high ground on an issue like harassment if they have a man who has been accused of (and photographed doing) what Franken did to Tweeden.  You can make the (not entirely without merit) argument that Roy Moore is worse, considering his actions would constitute multiple felonies and that he has a series of women who have accused him of these acts, rather than (as of now) just one woman in the case of Franken.  But there's nuance and then there's line-crossing, and I think this is a case where a line was crossed with both men, even if Moore went further over that line.  Without some sort of proper explanation (other than bad judgment), it's hard to find a way to not group Franken in with the likes of Trump, Clinton, and Moore now; he was a man in his mid-50's who had non-consensual contact with a woman.  When Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Rush Limbaugh bring this up, they'll bring it up without drawing the obvious line that men they defend are also guilty of similar misdeeds, but they won't be wrong in attacking Franken.

President Bill Clinton (D-AR)
3. The Political Price Here Isn't Worth Saving Franken

I wrote yesterday about Jonathan Chait's New Yorker article, and how Democrats when given the opportunity to prove that they'd act differently in the face of Trump or Moore, would act differently, and I meant it, and I hope that they do (so far near universal calls from senators for an ethics investigation seem to indicate that they're closer than the "if this is true" initial responses about Moore, though I'd honestly like them to go further as I think Franken should resign), but I won't entirely dismiss Chait's perspective that there isn't a political cost to a politician resigning, even if I think that the political cost shouldn't outweigh what is morally sound.

In this case, though, honestly, the political cost isn't that much for the Democrats, even if it's obviously a huge cost for Franken, who until this morning was a major player in the Democratic Party whom many thought could be a contender for the presidential nomination in 2020.  That's because Franken's replacement will be a Democrat (by virtue of Minnesota's governor being a Democrat), and because Minnesota in 2018 will probably be a pretty blue state.  Franken staying on means constant scandal, hanging an albatross around every Democrat who is running in 2018, and a wounded politician who will almost certainly have to retire in 2020, as it's doubtful he'll be able to win a primary again in a state like Minnesota.  There is no loss of seat here, there's no impact on any debate in Washington, and the math for 2018 doesn't get that much harder here as it's unlikely the Republicans are able to score the seat of Gov. Mark Dayton's replacement due to the Gopher State's blue tint.  It shouldn't be the mitigating decision factor, but this isn't the same as if, say, Joe Manchin was accused of this action where he's the only person capable of winning the seat-Franken's much easier to cut loose.  It seems seedy to point this out, but honestly it's not a rock-and-a-hard-place here, it's a rock-and-an-easy-exit.

The Democrats probably should do well to remember that had Bill Clinton resigned in 1998, they would have held the White House with a President Gore.  Gore was morally on a different plane than Clinton, the economy was in good shape, and the Republicans wouldn't have been able to hang Clinton's moral deficiencies around his neck the way they did in 2000 because Gore would have proved himself to be his own man by that point.  Imagine a world where George W. Bush was never president, and remember that not resigning has just as many ramifications as resigning does.  And let's be really honest here-in hindsight, Bill Clinton should have resigned.  His behavior with Monica Lewinsky was beneath the dignity of the White House, less because he had an affair and more because she worked for him which made what he did sexual harassment, not to mention the very serious and consistent allegations that came from Juanita Broaddrick.

4. Keith Ellison Should Not Replace Franken

This is putting the cart before the horse, but if Franken does resign (and, again, I think that he should unless someone can provide a big hole in this story fast, which doesn't seem possible now considering Franken's statement a few moments ago), he should not be replaced by Keith Ellison.  I know that the internet has a love-in for Ellison, but A) he's not the only Democrat in Minnesota B) his politics may be arguably too liberal for a state that went to Hillary Clinton by less than 2-points) and C) I think, considering the allegations against Franken, that a female politician should take the place of the senator.

Identity politics is occasionally a sticky issue, but this feels like an open-and-shut case for them in my opinion.  The state has a number of prominent, very qualified female politicians to take Franken's place.  Off-the-top-of-my-head, Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, State Auditor Rebecca Otto, State Attorney General Lori Swanson, and Rep. Betty McCollum all come to mind (though McCollum's appointment would leave a House seat open in an environment where we may need her vote in the House), and with the former three, they've proven before that they can win statewide, so 2018 wouldn't be an issue.  I think sending a message that we need more women in Washington (because we do, as this and dozens of other issues have shown), would best be aided by actually sending another woman to Washington.

5. We All Need to Take a Harder Look at Ourselves

The Franken allegation is a reminder that all men need to remember to look at their actions not just from what they assume people are comfortable with, but also to remember their position and what may feel "funny" or "not that big of a deal" can in fact be a big deal.  I will admit I am shocked by these allegations in a way I wasn't for Moore, Weinstein, or Spacey before him.  I had admired Franken's work as a public servant, and as I mentioned above, have voted for him twice.  That someone who counts himself as an ally of women could do such things, particularly in a professional setting, is shocking to me, and while you may not have done the things that Franken has been accused of here, it's important to remember to ask yourself, particularly men, how can I be a better ally and are there any actions I have taken that might make someone uncomfortable, and adjust our behaviors.  Everyone taking a look at themselves, and not just casting stones, is how we solve this problem permanently.