The UnReported Story of Hillary's Strength

Hillary Clinton knows better than anyone else that four months is an eternity in politics. She also probably knows that she's ahead. Polling shows her crushing Donald Trump in Iowa of all places, a state that has never really warmed to her like some others. But that's not all:

According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:

• 51% to 37% in Florida
• 45% to 41% in Iowa
• 50% to 33% in Michigan
• 48% to 38% in North Carolina
• 46% to 37% in Ohio
• 49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
• 45% to 38% in Virginia

Her leads held at nearly the same margins when Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson was included in the poll. And Clinton led Trump 48% to 37% when all states were factored together. With Johnson included, Clinton led Trump 44% to 34%, with Johnson at 13%.

Yes, Quinnipiac did show the race closer, but the ABC/Washington Post and the NBC/Wall Street Journal Polls both found her comfortably ahead.

Hillary Clinton's common ground in all the polls is that she leads. She hasn't trailed in a national poll in well past a month now. She doesn't trail in any swing-state polls either. Some show the race closer, some show it further apart, none of them show Trump ahead. Maybe this is about Trump's relative weakness. Maybe it's all about Clinton's campaign. Either way- she's strong right now. The argument that Democrats couldn't nominate her because she'd be sure to lose is basically dead. While she's not a lock to win at this time, FiveThirtyEight sets her odds at 79.2%. What should be more telling is that they are setting current state margins for South Carolina, Mississippi, and Kansas inside of 5% for Trump. That is really not good for him.

Obviously you won't read about how Hillary might win a blowout victory. If it's over now, why would anyone care about future coverage, which hurts the media outlets. They won't spite themselves to report the facts, so you'll just have to wait until November 8th to hear about it.

The Over-Hyped, Faux Story of Pennsylvania's Competitiveness

In 2000, Tom Ridge refused to believe Al Gore had won Pennsylvania. In 2004, George W. Bush ran the same campaign model that won him Ohio and Florida, but John Kerry carried Pennsylvania. In 2008, John McCain tried to resurrect himself as the floor fell in by doing so in Western Pennsylvania. Mitt Romney seemed to have the good sense in 2012 to get the point, but Republicans are saying it again- Donald Trump can win Pennsylvania. They even cite the registration changes above. This will end up like the others.

Pennsylvania is won in Philadelphia's suburbs. Yes, the Western part of the state has trended Republican in recent years, but the population there has dropped. Running a "guns and God" appeal to those voters out there does not win the state for a Republican, in fact it hurts them worse in the Philadelphia region, where people are still moving. While the map above should not make a Democrat feel "good" about things, it's worth noting that most of the registration change is just "Reagan Democrats" actually registering as Republicans, like they vote. It's not new registrants switching. Those people were already in many cases voting Republican. There's no beef in this argument.

In short, Pennsylvania will be competitive, maybe even close, as it always is. One of these days, maybe the Republicans will win it, but if that happens, they probably already won the election. It's worth noting though that elections have actually become more lopsidedly Democratic at the state level. In 2002, Governor Rendell won a large victory. In 2004, Democrats won two out of three state row offices and the Presidential race, only losing for Senate and Attorney General. In 2006, Governor Rendell and Casey won blowouts for Governor and Senator. In 2008, President Obama won a blowout and the Democrats won two out of three row offices. In 2012, President Obama and Senator Casey won fairly comfortable wins, and the Democrats swept the row offices. In 2014, Governor Wolf won easily. In 2015, in a relatively new outcome for off-years, Democrats swept all the state judicial races handily. The only exception in which Republicans did well in Pennsylvania statewides recently was 2010, which was a year they did well everywhere. In other words, the PA GOP hasn't done so well in recent years. Donald Trump is not a particularly strong candidate according to polls, and he doesn't have a really strong campaign. In other words, I don't see him flipping Pennsylvania right now. I don't see why people are giving this story legs.

Check back in November.

Is Global Trade for the 1%, or the Global Poor?

Provocative stuff from Jonathan Chait:

The argument for restricting this trade rests on protecting the interests of the working class in rich countries at the expense of the global poor who are taking their jobs. In an interview last summer, Ezra Klein pushed Sanders into more or less conceding that his trade plans would look out for American workers at the expense of poor workers overseas. “I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent-paying jobs, have education, have health care, have nutrition for their people,” Sanders replied, when asked how he would balance the two. “That is a moral responsibility, but you don't do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly.”

This is the meat of the debate between free-trade Democrats and protectionist ones. On the one side, free traders arguing that trade lifts up the global poor and reduces barriers to exports. On the other, an argument that we need to lift foreign workers up to our standard of living for their labor. It's a rather straight-forward debate.

Chait goes further in though:

Sanders argues that the correct response to the system that is allegedly failing rich and poor countries alike is “real change,” stripped of nativist sentiments: “we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.” But Trump’s message, for all its demagoguery and racism, is at least connected to a factually coherent analysis of how trade works, as Annie Lowrey points out. Trump is arguing that trade deals have helped foreign countries and screwed American workers. He’s straightforward about his intention to screw over foreign countries.

Sanders, on the other hand, wants to pretend that a policy that screws over the global poor can be undertaken not only without overt bigotry, but that it will also benefit the global poor themselves. Between the two, Trump’s case is the more realistic one.

And here in lies the provocative part of this- Trump at least gets global trade, while Bernie and his supporters don't. I don't know that I buy it- a certain amount of rhetorical ignorance has to be allowed to any policy point. With that said, Trump's appeal does get the zero-sum nature of this issue- he casts it as "American workers vs. the global working poor." Sanders is trying to cast this as a "workers of the world vs. the rich" debate. Trump's case is the factually accurate one. It is also the factually dangerous one. It promotes xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, and frankly, racism. Bernie's perhaps does over-simplify who should be aligned with who, but nails the fact that really, no worker should be exploited just because of where they live. I think Chait hits on some important points here. I just also think he's boiling the issue down further than we really should.

Donald Trump Cannot Win the Election, Hillary Can Only Lose It

What one calls arrogance, can simply be stated truth. In American national elections, at this point in our history, the country leans to the left. Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. They haven't finished below 48% in any of them since 1992. Republicans increasingly rely on an electorate that is male, older, and whiter than the country on the whole, which leaves them with less wiggle room to win. Republicans can win the election, but it is less likely than not. In other words, as of 2016, Presidential elections lean towards the Democrats, in generic terms.

So, let me state my point- Donald Trump cannot "win" the election. I'm not saying he won't be the victor on November 8th, I'm saying he will only be so if Hillary "loses" the election for herself. I completely discount the theory that Trump will pull out such a massive bigot vote as to win, unless you convince me that Hillary wildly underperforms President Obama. Is that possible? Sure is. Probable? Your guess is as good as mine.

A few points here:

1. Hillary hasn't basically been ahead since the end of the primaries. She has certainly been ahead since her blistering speech attacking Trump on foreign policy. The size of her lead varies from a point or two to double-digits. The point is that the most common outcome right now in the polls is she is ahead.
2. There are even more state-level polls than national ones, because there are 50 states. She does not lead every single swing-state poll- but she leads the solid majority of them. Right now, Trump does not hold a consistent lead in a single state that President Obama won. Not one. There is time obviously for that to change, but as is, expect her to win over 300 electoral votes.
3. Donald Trump really should not do any better amongst any non-white group than Mitt Romney did. Not African-Americans, not Hispanics, not Jewish-Americans, not Asian-Americans, not LGBT people. His "Make America Great Again" line has no real appeal to people who have traditionally been marginalized. Given that Trump has gone out of his way to insult Hispanics, Muslims, women, and lots of other groups in this campaign, I don't think he has a way to really improve on Romney's numbers here.
4. The idea that Trump will win because he will turn out droves of non-traditional white voters, or that Democrats are suddenly switching sides to vote for him, is basically all bunk. The white "lazy voter" theory has been run before, and did win- most recently in 2004- but President Obama has shown that strategy to be inadequate in winning a national election. Don't forget, Mitt Romney's margin amongst white voters in 2012 was virtually identical or better to President George H.W. Bush's 1988 margin- which resulted in a blowout win- but Romney lost. It's also worth noting that Romney saw huge white-Democrat crossover in the "Rust Belt" states- but he lost them. 
5. The idea that a catastrophic world event, such as a terrorist attack, could help Trump, doesn't seem to be in the cards. The Orlando shooting seemed to help Clinton, not Trump, in the polls. She consistently wins on national security questions. I think this issue is inverted on what we're used to.

So, with that in mind, Donald Trump cannot win the 2016 election. He may be the victor though. What do I mean? Hillary Clinton can lose the election. How?

1. Hillary can make a mistake. What is that mistake? If I knew, I'd stop her from doing it. She could say something damning though, a gaffe that ends the race. Is it likely? No. Possible? It always is, for any candidate.
2. The Bernie wing of the party could become enraged and not back her. By my math, we're only really talking about two or three million voters who are up for grabs, after accounting for those on board and those who will never be, but that's a point or two in the polls. How the next three weeks heading into Philly go is critical, but they should certainly be seen as working for his support in the lead up to the convention.
3. Turnout, turnout, turnout. A lame Vice-Presidential nominee, too hard of a rush to the center, or an insufficient outreach campaign to the varying groups in the Democratic coalition could end up leading to Hillary underperforming President Obama sufficiently. That could cost her.
4. The economy. I'm less worried about terrorism than a market crash in the closing months of this race. Events like Brexit are beyond an American President's control, and can lead to a global slowdown. Something like this could dampen enthusiasm for the sitting President, and flip even the small sliver of the electorate that is up for grabs.

One other thing you should note- I do believe Republicans will show up for Trump at levels rivaling or even slightly exceeding Mitt Romney. I do believe his hardcore base will vote. I do not believe the "Trump coalition" would be enough to win though, unless Hillary Clinton proves to be considerably weaker than President Obama was. Remember, his cushion was 63 electoral votes, while Romney fell 65 electoral votes short. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan all going to Trump would not win him the election alone, and he will have to hang onto Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, all of which aren't easy.

What I am saying is that Hillary Clinton should win the 2016 election and be the 45th President. What I am saying is that her built-in advantages, and Trump's weaknesses as a candidate make that clear. What I am saying is that I don't fear Trump's strengths as a candidate. What I am saying is that her substantial financial advantage is important. Even a three or four point win, which the polls basically suggest she should get to right now, equates to a Democratic win with over 300 electoral votes. Clinton should win a relative electoral landslide, at least under the terms of political landslides in America after the Cold War.

I'm not saying Clinton will absolutely win though. I am afraid of the left eating itself alive in disputes about ideology and purity. I am afraid of complacency amongst an electorate that has been "fat and happy" with our incumbent President. I am worried about external market pressures souring Americans on the Obama era. More so than anything though, i'm nervous about Democrats beating themselves. Donald Trump does not scare me at all. Progressives, liberals, Democrats, or whatever else you want to call us, killing ourselves is what worries me. Our inability to ever be happy with our success and strength is what worries me. To me, this election is an "in-house" fight.

This Ignoramus Might be the Next British Prime Minister, Sooo.....

There is a belief amongst some on the left that there is no way for Donald Trump to be elected President. In truth, under even 2012 turnout (leaving out 2008), there's not. That doesn't mean that Trump can't win though. Just knock down Democratic turnout and if Trump continues to push out Republicans, he may win.

This may seem implausible, and hopefully come October, it will be. Don't discount it though. The man above, Boris Johnson, the outgoing Mayor of London, was not only elected Mayor of London, but is in line to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He wants to stop immigration, disassociate with Europe, and "take back" his country, not unlike Donald Trump. He stood against Prime Minister David Cameron (of the same party), and won the Brexit fight.

Don't sleep on this.

Crazies By Every Political Angle, Will Kill America

Last night, I was out to dinner in New Jersey with a friend of mine. It was a good time, but during it, my phone kept going off. It kept going off with this gentleman from a previous post, who wanted to let me know that my Presidential candidate of choice "will be indicted," and that his candidate is clearly the future of politics (even though he lost, and mostly got white votes, but who cares about details). Why did he do this? I'm not sure, we're not eve Facebook friends, but I guess he wanted to let me know anyway.

He wasn't the only example of that this week, as you can see by the first picture above, a deranged right-wing nut that was mad that I dared say the former Secret Service agent who pedaled this garbage was out for money, and money alone. The second picture is just an insane one that I came across on Facebook, and found very amusing. This is what passes as political rhetoric with the lunatics in both parties in 2016. We actually have a group calling for a "fart in" during the Clinton nomination speech in Philadelphia- basically because they aren't happy that they lost, and want to be disruptors. They absolutely swear their guy could not have lost, it must, must, must have been rigged. Really!

We're seeing the rise of an ignorant class of active voters in this country, people that swear they can absolutely get their way on every issue, and swear that the people involved in politics must be criminal because they can't deliver their stated, insane goals- whether they be giving away free stuff the Congress won't approve, getting rid of immigrants, or isolating us from the world, science, and reason. Our politics are going off the rails because of this ignorance:

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick. 

We now have people who have no meaningful connection to politics, just anger and emotion, running around and actively taking part in politics. This is not the way we want the system to run, unless we want to fight a permanent battle of identifying and demonizing the enemies, but never solving the problems. Yes, the Tea Party loons on the right are scary because they are willing to shut down the government and destroy their own political party before compromising, but what is really different on the left? At the point that the Affordable Care Act is taking on attacks from a nominally-Democratic Presidential contender because it's imperfect, we have a real problem. We have reached a point where compromising to get most of what you want is unacceptable. We have reached a point where heated rhetoric is the expectation, even the demand. In fact, this might be the only way to win now:

Was the switch to direct public nomination a net benefit or drawback? The answer to that question is subjective. But one effect is not in doubt: Institutionalists have less power than ever before to protect loyalists who play well with other politicians, or who take a tough congressional vote for the team, or who dare to cross single-issue voters and interests; and they have little capacity to fend off insurgents who owe nothing to anybody. Walled safely inside their gerrymandered districts, incumbents are insulated from general-election challenges that might pull them toward the political center, but they are perpetually vulnerable to primary challenges from extremists who pull them toward the fringes. Everyone worries about being the next Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader who, in a shocking upset, lost to an unknown Tea Partier in his 2014 primary. Legislators are scared of voting for anything that might increase the odds of a primary challenge, which is one reason it is so hard to raise the debt limit or pass a budget.

Do the extremes get some things right? Yes. LGBT Marriage was "extreme" in 2004, and in 2016 it's settled law. De-segregation was "extreme" in 1948, and today it is the expectation. The difference in those cases though was that the "extreme" was towards a tangible goal, not the shut down of negotiation, the demand of one's way, or the destruction of the other side's agenda. Right now, we're facing a dangerous group of extremists who believe that everything must go their way, and have an extremely distorted view of politics and governance:

Using polls and focus groups, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that between 25 and 40 percent of Americans (depending on how one measures) have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. I think of these people as “politiphobes,” because they see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. Not surprisingly, politiphobes think the obvious, commonsense solutions are the sorts of solutions that they themselves prefer. But the more important point is that they do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.

This is dangerous. These people insist that their solution is common-sense, and everyone involved won't do it because they are corrupt. That is horrifyingly wrong. It's how you get to ignorant electorates nominating Donald Trump, or the Brits voting to exit the UK and go isolationist.

The truth is, the extremists are convinced they are right, and they are not afraid to tell you so. Their ignorance is their confidence, the idea that they could simply get their way on everything, if those damned insiders would step aside and let the true believers in. We've seen it on both sides this year. It is ugly. It is not a good thing for the future of our country, or our world.

The Lesson of David Cameron for American Politicians

United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron risked everything on the BREXIT Referendum. Whether it was the bare-naked politics of appeasing his own right-flank, or an attempt to finally silence them, allowing this vote is now Cameron's legacy. His loss forced him out of office, like it or not.

The impact of Cameron's mistake (calling this referendum), will be felt far and wide. The market will suffer badly. Scotland and Northern Ireland will seek independence, and to join the EU. The EU will probably see other countries try to leave. The next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is likely to be a much further right, anti-immigration MP. This will be painful.

How we interpret Cameron's motivations is key to what lesson we learned. Was he trying to silence the crazy-right by holding the referendum, thinking he could beat them? Or was he appeasing them by giving them a reckless vote in an effort to win a second term as Prime Minister? If you accept the first, the lesson is that you increasingly can't predict that voters will do sane things, and leaders should not assume that the views of the connected and the general public will match up at all. If you believe Cameron is a panderer, well, you are seeing the dangerous consequences of appeasing the loudest and least thoughtful voices in your own coalition.

You can make your own assumptions about Cameron's rationalizations for this- it's clear either way there are lessons to be learned for American political leaders. In an era where voters in both parties simply seem to want change for change's sake, this should be a big caution to all political leaders, regardless of how you view Cameron.

On Bernie's Proposed Changes to the Process

It's kind of fascinating what a candidate will fight for at the end of a Presidential campaign. Is it the policy lines in the platform? Process changes? Removal of personalities? The Vice-Presidency or a cabinet post? What ultimately makes them tick, when the top job is off the table?

So Bernie Sanders has reportedly put out a list of things he wants, and they tend to focus on process- complete open primaries, ending the super-delegates, removal of the DNC Chairwoman and several other party leaders, and same-day registration in every state. Open primaries and same-day registration is not a decision of the party, while the super-delegate process and the party leaders are. I only support one of these four proposals, and am open on one. Here's why:

• Same-Day Registration- I support Bernie on this one. There should be same-day registration everywhere. We should make it as easy to vote as possible. Voting is a right. The problem with this, of course, is that state legislators need to approve this. They won't all be very excited to do this.
• Super-Delegates- I am certainly open to changing this system, but elimination would actually have negative consequences. If we eliminated super-delegates for 2020, members of Congress and Governors would be running for delegate slots against every day people who run. We would have a convention that would end up full of elites, and no one else. Now, I agree that super-delegates should not be allowed to over-rule the pledged delegate count, but 1.) they never have, and 2.) that's the only reason Bernie is still in the race. I don't think the super-delegates are a big problem, but i'm not totally opposed to making them pledged based on the results either. I don't see it as a priority though.
• Open Primaries and Caucuses- No. Absolutely not. I'm with the Congressional Black Caucus here, I want Democrats picking the Democratic nominee. If you can't join the party, why should you pick it's nominee? If you want to make registration easier, i'm fine with that. You still should join the party, if you want to make decisions regarding it.
• DNC Leadership- No. Absolutely not. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has her flaws, but she's done a good job. You do not reward people who are ignorantly claiming that she rigged the system. She did not. You don't reward sour grapes and misinformed statements.

Those are my thoughts right now. There's some things to work with, and some things to dismiss out of hand.

Donald's Implosion, Why He's Still Dangerous, and Why He's Still Here

Donald Trump is not doing very well right now. He's losing by double-digits in some national polls, but losing outside of the margin of error in just about all of them. To be clear, that is odd in recent political memory. At this point in 2008, for instance, John McCain was still very much alive, and even leading in the polls some times- and he lost by a lot.

That he's losing isn't the end of the world though. Donald Trump may be behind by an alarming amount in the polls, but it is June, and he has months to move the public. The problem he has is that he's stone-cold broke. He doesn't have the money to advertise and change minds. He doesn't have a ground game out there in the battleground states either. Top all of that off with the fact that he just canned his manager, and you see why Trump's White House hopes are dimming.

Let me touch on something being missed though, particularly about his manager- that may be the most dangerous piece to him of all. Corey Lewandowski was not "qualified" to run this race. That's precisely why Trump succeeded in the primaries. A more established manager would never have allowed Trump to go out and gin up white supremacists, the angry, and hillbillies. Lewandowski did. This is why Trump won. Let's be clear, no policy won him this race on it's own, the general idea that Trump stood with those people brought them out. The idea that he would say exactly what those folks felt was what made him attractive. Lewandowski was the perfect manager for Donald Trump, the manager who allowed him to function at "peak Trump."

So, in the midst of all of this talk about Trump's current implosion, it's important to not get caught up in it. The same people that nominated Trump, and many more like them, still exist. Donald Trump will probably continue to try and reach them. As long as those two things are true, Donald Trump remains dangerous. Should he be able to win with the message he has? Of course not. MOST of these people voted for past Republican nominees, and obviously they've won the popular vote one out of the last six times. Even so, the fact that Donald Trump understood what the Republican electorate really wanted to hear (note here: it's not "limited government"), shows just how dangerous he can be. The man is actually not a great businessman (he bankrupted many companies), he's a great marketer. He showed us his marketing prowess in the primaries. He still has that in him. Sure, every metric shows him to be in big danger, and he is, but I wouldn't get over confident yet.

The only question that I can still not answer about Donald though is his motivation. Why is he doing this? I suspect that a few years from now, we'll find out that he felt slighted by another candidate (probably Jeb), or the party didn't treat him with respect when seeking his donation, or some other personal motivation drug him into this, which is also why he doesn't seem to have the same fire right now, when he's the presumptive nominee, like he did during the primaries. He certainly didn't plan this out like a campaign, and he clearly didn't take the advice of major political consultants. Getting into his head on all of this would be fascinating.

Regardless, Donald Trump has some major issues right now, but he's not "dead" politically. People would be foolish to read too deep into his issues in June, and assume that we will defeat him easily.

Even 37% is Too Much

Hillary Clinton leads in a Bloomberg Poll 49-37% over Donald Trump. But consider:

Meanwhile, Trump has shown no sign that he plans on moderating his tone or policy proposals now that he will top the Republican ticket. He drew the condemnation of top members of his party over his claims that a federal judge presiding over Trump University lawsuits is biased because the judge is of Mexican descent. More recently, since the mass shooting at an Orlando LGBT night club, Trump has doubled down on his proposal to ban Muslims, while insinuating that President Obama was somehow connected to the attack.

A man who is spewing outright racism is getting 37% of our voters. That's over one out of every three voters you see. How? How can that many people think that this know-nothing racist is capable of being President. This bothers me:

It also said that it was "troubling" for Trump that 63 percent of women polled said they could never vote for him. For decades, female voters have made up a majority of the electorate.

Trump is leading Clinton among white men -- 50 to 33 percent -- according to the poll, but he still has work to do to catch up to the 62 percent of white men who supported Mitt Romney in 2012 exit polls.

A majority of likely voters -- 64 percent -- said they expect that Trump will keep saying things that upset Republicans, while only 30 percent said they believe the presumptive GOP nom would tone it down.

Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad.

As a white man, I'm disgusted with those like me. As someone with a brain, i'm disgusted that 50% of the public thinks he could fight terrorism. I'm kind of just disgusted that anyone supports this. This man is a clown, and not a funny one. He's an ignoramus on an unmatched level, and fits the stereotype of that ignorant relative who just spews Rush Limbaugh's one-liners at you during Thanksgiving Dinner.

I really hope Gary Johnson somehow beats this clown.

Terminology Won't Beat ISIS

Hillary Clinton did call it "Radical Islamic Terrorism." President Obama did not. Donald Trump insists failure to call it that should be a disqualifier. To listen to this arguing about a term, you would think the term was actually a substitute for a strategy to handle ISIS. Of course, that's laughable- ISIS won't disband just because the President does or does not call them "radical Islamic terrorists." It doesn't work that way.

To be clear here, Donald Trump would not know the first thing about how to handle ISIS if he were President. He has zero experience in dealing with terrorism, and his talk of being tough with them would simply create more ISIS. Calling them "radical Islamic terrorists" won't do anything either, at least if your goal is to actually defeat them. In fact, it will feed into their narrative- that this is a war between Islam and America.

About the only net effect of the term that I can think of is to divide us here at home. To make non-Muslims view Muslim-Americans as an "other," as someone different, as an enemy within. It will serve Trump's purpose of dividing Americans and bringing the most ignorant ones to his side of the argument. It won't help us defeat ISIS though, no matter how hard he says it. If that worked, we would have been saying "radical Christian terrorists" for a long time in America.

Hillary Folks- Stop Telling Bernie People to "Unite"

Eight years ago this month, Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for President, conceding the nomination to then-Senator Barack Obama. During that campaign, I had worked for her, and at that time I was very, very disappointed. It took me a little time to accept the result and move on. I did, and I voted for President Obama, and I'm proud that I did. I can't lie and say it was easy though.

Right now, supporters of Bernie Sanders are in a similar situation. Hillary is about to be nominated in July's convention in Philadelphia. Bernie Sanders, after a long and hard fought campaign, is going to come up a little short of victory. His supporters, some of whom have put their heart and soul into the race, are now forced to come to grips with that, and make their decision about how to move forward. It's tough. I wasn't with them during this campaign, but I feel their pain. You don't come around over night, despite pledges to do so every time.

I have complete and total faith in most of the Sanders supporters. Are there some "Bernie or Bust" people who can't be reached? Sure, and I have made my opinions clear about them in the recent past. The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters are smart and decent people, with whom I share many values- a commitment to combatting climate change, a living wage for an honest day's work, support for public education, a desire to see universal health care, a belief in common-sense gun laws, and many more progressive positions. We may not agree on the details to do it, but we share the goals. I believe that 85-90% of the Sanders supporters are good, decent people who will come to the responsible decision about moving forward in this Presidential race, in part because of our shared values, and in part because of Donald Trump.

The Sanders supporters don't need my advice on what to do, they're adults and can figure out what's right for them. They also don't need me to tell them "it's time to unite." They should work on their time line and come to their own decision. The folks who need my advice are my fellow Clinton supporters. We need to win with some level of decency. Stop telling Sanders people what they need to do right now. It's June. They can think and come to their own conclusions. Do they need to accept the reality of the race at this time? Yes. Do they have to "get on board" with it today? No. Give them time.

I have faith that things will work their ways out. Give them time to do so. For my fellow Clinton supporters, put your energies into positive things, working hard to talk to voters and donate to the campaign. Don't put your energies into badgering Sanders volunteers into supporting us.

Differing Visions

Saturday I had the distinct pleasure of meeting someone who has actually commented on here before, negatively, while at the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee. If this had been prior to last Tuesday, I had a whole plan of how I was going to light him up, but with the nomination basically over, I intended to leave things be. That did not happen, thanks to another individual (this one), who basically challenged me to meet the guy. When challenged, I'll accept. So I met the guy. Twice in fact we talked. Frankly, it was exactly what I expected.

This guy is a "Bernie or Bust" person, which means there isn't much for him and I to discuss. I don't agree with his world view, his vision for the Democratic Party, his impressions of our candidates, or even really what he wants. That's exactly what I told him too- nice to meet you, I don't agree with you on much of anything. Then he got to talking though, and frankly, that is when everything I thought was confirmed.

What were some of his feelings? Hillary Clinton is corrupt. The Democratic Party of today is like the Republican Party of 20 years ago. The Democratic Party should begin behaving like a liberal Tea Party. We need a political revolution, because money is automatically corrupting. We need to stop compromising in politics. We need to make demands and stick to them, down to the letter.

In short, the Democratic Party should be a rigidly ideological party, one that is willing to be irresponsible to America to get it's way. I just couldn't disagree more. I don't want a liberal Tea Party, as I think the Tea Party has been a bad thing on not just policy, but in it's tactics as well. I see no utility in being this kind of party. I don't believe it helps the public to slow down progress in the name of some sort of purity test. I think his politics are destructive.

I also couldn't disagree more with his feelings on the party either. I think that the Democratic Party of 2016 is one of the most morally just and decent institutions in American history. We have nominated and elected the first African-American President, and are poised to follow that with the first female nominee in American history. We passed a health care law giving access to insurance to roughly 20 million people. We lead the fight for marriage equality for the LGBT community. We passed Dodd-Frank. We saved the auto industry. I could go on, and on, but won't because one point is clear- we have helped millions of Americans, opened opportunity for countless more, and made the world a better place. I will defend this party against all critics. The fact that members of it take contributions to their campaigns from people that some folks have decided are the devil means nothing to me.

I would like to close this piece on a positive note, that this individual took the time to get involved and try to make things better, but I can't. He probably literally wouldn't let me. When told that delegates are now "part of the establishment," he bristled and recoiled from that in a hurry. He doesn't really intend to be a part of making things better. For him, it's about either getting his way in it's entirety, or tearing everything down by labeling it as bad. I guess we just have a very different vision for the Democratic Party, the American left, and government in America.

Closing the Book on the Democratic Primaries

When something's over, you move on from the emotions of it. As the 2016 Democratic Primary fight reaches it's ending, it is high time to move on from it. Does that mean all grievances are settled? No, probably not. It does mean you move on though.

I've made it clear throughout this process that I support Hillary Clinton. Yes, I'm with her. I support her the person, the candidate, her ideas, and her track record. I do not believe she is corrupt, ineffective, "Republican-lite" or anything else negative. I think Hillary Clinton will make a great President, and she is exactly who I want in office.

I also made it clear that I did not support Bernie Sanders in this process. Rather than going through everything, I will be succinct- I disagreed with some of his positions, I didn't like the tone of his campaign, and I did not share his want for a "revolution." I say this while sharing some of his goals- a higher minimum wage, a national health care system, fair trade deals, and others- to name a few. I just never came around to his details. I think he's a fine Senator and hope he continues to do good work there.

As this ends, there is a certain level of animus on my end that will slowly fade away. Sanders message became something that I not only disagreed with, but find to be dangerous. I am mad. Despite being insurmountably behind for months, he continued to batter our presumptive nominee as a tool of right-wing interests. He continued to cast aspersions on the validity of our nominating process, feeding people who did not understand the process and sometimes in it for the first time, with feelings that they were being robbed. He called great elected leaders, people doing wonderful things, "the establishment" in a condescending way. He and his campaign viciously smeared our DNC chair, state chairs, and party leaders. I found the tone and message, calling for a "political revolution" after eight years of President Obama, to be offensive. I found it to be an affront to all Democratic Party members. I found it to be ridiculous.

In short, I found his attacks on the Democratic Party to not only be false, but to completely turn me against him. In short order, I will be over it. In short order (like after Tuesday), I won't even mention these disputes again. As we close the books though on this process, it's time to move on. I agree with Bernie Sanders on many, many items of policy, and I actually agree with his supporters on many of our goals too. There's no sense kicking a dead horse any more, so I won't. It's time to start closing the books and moving on. If Senator Sanders wants to "take it to Philadelphia," he has earned that right, and it won't matter much in the end anyway. As far as I'm concerned, this is basically done.

In His Own Words...

History- Or Herstory- Has Been Made

As someone who worked on the 2008 campaign, there's a real satisfaction in watching Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination this time. I thought then she would be a great President, and I am more convinced now. I can't wait to elect her President.

One thing I had not thought much about before Tuesday night was the moment she won's historical value. This is the first woman nominee of a major political party (and NO, I don't count Jill Stein). This woman has done something we never have had happen before. It was actually fitting that she was alone on stage giving her victory speech, because frankly, she stands alone. She is special. She is historic.

I supported Hillary Clinton throughout this primary process, and I will support her this Fall. The future of the nation, and maybe even mankind, depends on defeating the know-nothing, racist, fraud that the Republican Party has nominated. Donald Trump has no place in a civilized society, certainly not as a President. Hillary Clinton on the other hand brings a wealth of experience, concrete plans, and compassion towards every day Americans. The choice of who to vote for this Fall is absolutely clear.

We must make history one more time.

Democratic Primary Update- Any Minute Now

This weekend, Hillary Clinton swept the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, putting her within a stone's throw of the Democratic nomination. The delegate count at this point:

• Hillary Clinton- 1,809 pledged delegates, 548 super-delegates, 2,357 total delegates (needs 26 more).
• Bernie Sanders- 1,520 pledged delegates, 46 super-delegates, 1,566 total delegates (trails by 791).

So here's what will happen next. Hillary Clinton will receive 26 delegates without any effort, so she will effectively become the presumptive nominee at 8 pm on Tuesday when New Jersey polls close (or possibly before if super-delegates endorse her). At 11 pm, when California polls close, Clinton will pass the 2,026 mark of pledged delegates, meaning she will have won the majority from the people.

Sanders can decide for himself if he stays in beyond Tuesday. His hope is that super-delegates will change their mind by the end of July in Philadelphia. That seems to be highly unlikely, since she will have won the majority of the votes and pledged delegates. With that said, Sanders has certainly earned the option of either having a roll call vote or making some form of deal with the presumptive nominee on speaking and on the platform.

Clinton-???: A Look at the VeepStakes

Once Hillary Clinton gets through Tuesday with 2,383 delegates and the primaries begin to fade into our rearview, the unofficial "race" for the Vice-Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party will begin in earnest. This is, of course, the job that everyone says they don't want (usually), but no one turns down, outside of extraordinary circumstances. Given Hillary's lead in the polls, sometimes very small, sometimes large, getting the nod from her to be VP is a good bet for any Democratic politician who harbors dreams of the White House for themselves. There are no shortage of potential picks there, both young and old. She will have plenty of interested parties.

In accordance with such, this is my current list of potentials, ranked in my preference order.

1. Elizabeth Warren- I've completely come on board with this one. Senator Warren has done a great job of being the voice of progressive economic policy inside the Senate, but the one thing she has done better than that is rip Donald Trump apart, and get under his thin-skin. She would electrify progressives and bring an authentic populist voice to the ticket. She would go a long way to unifying the party too. The cons on her are geography (Massachusetts), her being in her 60s, and the somewhat unfounded fear of putting two women on the ticket.
2. Cory Booker- If i'm rooting for anyone to get this nod, it's Senator Booker (I worked on his Senate coordinated campaign in NJ in 2014). He's young, he gives a great speech, he's refreshing, and now he's fairly qualified- having both run a large city and been a Senator for several years. Senator Booker being African-American and young would be a real shot in the arm to Democratic hopes of re-creating the "Obama coalition," and the guy has a genuinely great story to tell. The cons on him are geography (New Jersey and her native New York are neighbors) and perceived experience.
3. Julian Castro- Secretary Castro, like Senator Booker, is the future of our party. He's young, gives a great speech, is photogenic, and also now has a very impressive resume. He also was Mayor of a large city (San Antonio) and now serves in President Obama's cabinet (HUD Secretary). He also gives an impressive speech, and his Latino roots also would go a long way to helping Democrats re-create the "Obama coalition." He's another guy with a great personal story too. The cons on him are geography (we're not going to win his native Texas) and perceived experience. 
4. Al Franken- Senator Franken would make this the most colorful election in recent memory. The Minnesota progressive is well liked amongst his Senate peers, and has spent most of his political career "toning it down," but you know that if Donald Trump decides to make this a fire fight, Senator Franken can throw one-liners better than anyone in politics. He's funny, likable, and acceptable to progressives. He also could be a real lift in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. His cons are that he's white, male, and straight. 
5. Thomas Perez- The Labor Secretary has quietly crept up everyone's boards, and should get a good, long look for this job. Perez is a Latino, which obviously helps on that "Obama coalition" front, but he is also loved by organized labor, who will be key in fighting back against the "Trump coalition." Perez's cons are lower name recognition (comparable to the first four), geography (Maryland), and lack of electoral experience.
6. Sherrod Brown- The Ohio Senator checks off many boxes. For one, he's a real populist, and would excite progressives. Two, he represents the swing-state of swing-states. Three he's qualified. He'd play well in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The cons on him are that he's white, male, and straight. 
7. Tim Kaine- The Virginia Senator has an impressive resume. He's been Governor and Lt. Governor of Virginia. He's been U.S. Senator. He has an impressive civil rights resumes. He represents a huge swing-state. He would seem to be perfect. The cons on him are his demographics- white, male, and straight- and that he is not perceived as overly "exciting."
8. Bernie Sanders- While this seems to be a very, very unlikely pick, I put him here, in part because even as a solidly Clinton partisan, I could welcome him with open arms. Obviously he'd unify the party. Obviously his support groups, especially youth, would be excited. Obviously he'd please progressives. The cons are his demographics- white, male, straight, and old- and the obviously uncomfortable union of two primary rivals who eventually got nasty with each other.
9. Xavier Becerra- Congressman Becerra has represented downtown Los Angeles in the U.S. House for over 20 years. He's in the leadership there. He's Latino. He can throw a "zinger" with the best of them. He would set Trump over the edge. The cons on him are geography (we're going to win California), his long legislative record, and his relative lack of name recognition.
10. Hilda Solis- The current Los Angeles County Supervisor has served as U.S. Labor Secretary and Congresswoman as well. She has an impressive resume, is a Latina, and has a solidly pro-labor background. I keep her on this list because she would be another real progressive and populist. The cons on her are geography (California), long legislative record, and perceptions about her time at Labor.

Now, as you'll all see, I did not call being a Senator a "con." I don't see it as such. You'll also see that later in this list, I picked people not rumored in the news, which I did because I wanted some "outside the box" names here. If you asked me to guess though, one of the first seven will end up as the pick. 

Uniting the Party Comes Down to a Small Pocket of People

While we've all been battling over the Hillary-Bernie fight, a funny thing has happened- the primaries have reached their ending. Hillary Clinton will cross 2,383 delegates on June 7th when the polls close in New Jersey, and will at that point be the presumptive nominee. At that point, Bernie can either drop out or simply continue to Philadelphia without really any chance at winning, but that will be his call. She will begin searching for a VP, forming a transition team, and doing all the things that presumptive nominees do. Another part of this will begin to happen though- unification. That will essentially fall on Hillary and Bernie, more so than anyone else, to decide if they are on the same team or not.

Bernie will probably have to make the first choice- does he take this fight to a roll-call vote, or does he want a primetime speaking opportunity Monday or Tuesday. Given that the vote is Wednesday, he will have to make up his mind before the convention about what he intends to do. Then the real fun starts. Is he considered for VP? What parts of the platform does he get influence over? What lasting impression will he get to leave on this race? These are tough questions.

In the end though, it is Hillary Clinton who will need the Sanders supporters, as every nominee needs their rival's backers. Bernie Sanders will end the primary season in the neighborhood of 13 million votes strong, a large chunk by any measure. A very typical two-thirds of them say they will vote for Clinton now, meaning about 8.5 million are in her column. I would venture a guess that about ten percent of them will never vote for her, about 1.3 million. That 9.8 million still leaves 3.2 million out there. I suspect that once the nomination fight ends, a few more people will trickle into her column, giving her about 75% of them, or 9.7 million. Given those that she can't get, that leaves about two million people.

Now, maybe you think two million votes matters, maybe you don't. I tend to think it does. It doesn't to the point of bending over backwards to give Sanders anything and everything he would ever want, but it does to the point that the Clinton campaign should try to give him a dignified and celebratory exit. A nod to his supporters on the Vice-Presidential choice (to be read: a progressive), integrating some of his policy plans, a prime-time speaking spot, and perhaps a nod to him that as President she will join him on some major policy position that he tries to pass in the Senate, would all make sense. While this race has turned bitter, Bernie has done more than well enough to earn a strong consolation package for his campaign. Hopefully Hillary can bring herself there.

Susan Sarandon, Rosario Dawson are Embarrassments

Bernie Sanders won't go there. Why? Well, for one, he realizes the Hillary Clinton "e-mail scandal" is not a scandal at all, and he's not willing to sell himself out to the American right-wing to score cheap points. Two, of course, because there's nothing there. I give Bernie Sanders big points for that show of principle.

This doesn't mean that everyone is as principled as him, not even within his own campaign. Susan Sarandon had no such pause, going right for the e-mail attack. Sarandon, an actress and not a lawyer, declared that Hillary Clinton will be indicted. How does she know? I don't think reality matters to this lunatic. She knows "because she knows," I assume.

Sarandon is not alone in her behavior though. Rosario Dawson amazingly tried to use Monica Lewinsky in an attack on Hillary Clinton. Aside from the fact that Lewinsky has nothing to do with how Hillary would serve as President, it is absolutely disgusting to use her husband's affair against her.

Sarandon and Dawson are absolute jokes, not just as surrogates, but as people. They will stoop to any low just to get their way. Don't expect me to take in either of their works any time soon.