H4a news Clips [May 1, 2015] Summary of Today’s news


SNL’s Kate McKinnon on playing Hillary Clinton: ‘I love her so much’ [Kendall Breitman, POLITICO, April 30, 2015]



Download 0.59 Mb.
Page4/11
Date19.10.2016
Size0.59 Mb.
#3936
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11
SNL’s Kate McKinnon on playing Hillary Clinton: ‘I love her so much’ [Kendall Breitman, POLITICO, April 30, 2015]
Kate McKinnon, the “Saturday Night Live” star, says she hasn’t gotten any complaints from the woman she’s now brutally impersonating: Hillary Clinton.
Kate McKinnon, the “Saturday Night Live” star, says she hasn’t gotten any complaints from the woman she’s now brutally impersonating: Hillary Clinton.
“I have not heard from her. I hope she likes it because, obviously, I love her so much,” McKinnon said Thursday on ABC’s “Live with Kelly and Michael.”
“SNL” is justly famous for skewering top politicians, and its impersonations of figures like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush and Sarah Palin have made more than a few comedians’ careers — while often cementing public impressions of their leaders as bumbling idiots.
Enter McKinnon, who has begun portraying Clinton as a grasping, power-mad woman who struggles to be authentic.
Take how “SNL” dealt with Clinton’s email scandal, just after the former secretary of state was found to have used a private email account for official State Department business. McKinnon, as Clinton, came out for a cold open during episode 15 of the show’s 40th season to speak to Americans “as a relatable woman on a couch.”
“Those emails are clean as a whistle,” the fake Clinton says. “This is not how Hillary Clinton goes down.”
“I wasn’t born yesterday. I was born 67 years ago, and I have been planning on being president ever since,” McKinnon-as-Clinton says. “There will be no mistakes in my rise to the top.”
In another tough sketch, McKinnon parodies Clinton’s attempt to look “natural” by recording her own announcement video with the help of an image consultant, ending up shouting into the camera: “Citizens! You will elect me! I will be your leader!”
And while McKinnon calls herself a “huge admirer” of Clinton, she explained to hosts Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan why she’s happy she hasn’t had the opportunity to meet the former secretary of state: “I’m sort of glad I haven’t heard from her, because if I ever met her I think I would disintegrate into the air and blow away like a dandelion.”
Hillary Clinton Agrees With Elizabeth Warren On Trade Dispute With Obama [Zach Carter, Amanda Terkel and Ryan Grim, Huffington Post, April 30, 2015]
Hillary Clinton is opposed to a critical piece of the Obama administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would give corporations the right to sue sovereign nations over laws or regulations that could potentially curb their profits.
Hillary Clinton is opposed to a critical piece of the Obama administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would give corporations the right to sue sovereign nations over laws or regulations that could potentially curb their profits.
The policy position is contained in her book Hard Choices, and was confirmed to HuffPost by a spokesperson for her presidential campaign. Obama and congressional Democrats are locked in a bitter public feud over TPP -- a deal between 12 Pacific nations -- with much of the controversy derived from concerns it will undermine regulatory standards.
Clinton writes in her book:
Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors. (Emphasis added.)
Obama's TPP deal would be enforced by a process known as "investor-state dispute settlement," which allows foreign companies to attack domestic laws or regulations before an international tribunal if they believe those rules unfairly curb investment returns. Those tribunals can't directly overturn laws, but they can impose hefty fines on the countries they rule against.
Financial watchdogs and environmental activists are particularly concerned the process will be used to stymie future rulemaking with the threat of international fines. Congress often considers trade commitments when debating domestic legislation, at times diluting or derailing it. Foreign countries have halted anti-smoking rules over ISDS lawsuits.
Obama has vigorously defended ISDS against criticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others, insisting it is necessary to protect American companies abroad.
"In a lot of countries, U.S. companies are discriminated against, and going through their court system would not give them relief," Obama told reporters on a conference call last week. "The notion that corporate America is going to be able to use this provision to eliminate our financial regulations and our food safety regulations and our consumer regulations -- that's just bunk. It's not true."
The Australian case that Clinton referenced in her book, however, is instructive. The Australian government enacted legislation that would require tobacco products be sold only with plain, simple packaging that includes health warnings -- labeling the tobacco companies objected to. Philip Morris Asia is suing Australia under a different free trade pact, using a similar ISDS provision, arguing that the Australian law is cutting into its profit. It's easy to see how laws in, say, New York City, would be similarly targeted.
On the same conference call, Obama defended the system further:
There are over 3,000 different ISDS agreements among countries across the globe, and this neutral arbitration system has existed since the 1950s. The United States has investment agreements with 54 different countries over the last 30 years. Under these various ISDS provisions, the U.S. has been sued a total of 17 times. Thirteen of those cases have been decided so far; we’ve won them all.
They have no ability to undo U.S. laws. They don’t have the ability to result in punitive damages. ISDS has come under some legitimate criticism when they’re poorly written, because they’ve been used in particular by some tobacco companies in some countries to challenge anti-tobacco regulation. And that’s why we have made sure that some of the legitimate criticisms around past ISDS provisions are tightened, are strengthened so that there is no possibility of smaller countries or weaker countries getting clobbered by the legal departments of somebody like R.J. Reynolds so that they can’t pass anti-smoking legislation. That, by the way, is more of a legitimate concern for the other signatories to the deal who would not be able to manage expensive litigation, than it is an argument that our laws would be challenged.
Indeed, environmental watchdogs are concerned corporations will use TPP to undermine environmental protections abroad. And while ISDS provisions have existed for a long time, companies didn't really take advantage of them until the 21st century. As Warren noted in an op-ed for The Washington Post, less than 100 ISDS cases were initiated between 1959 and 2002, while 58 were filed in 2012 alone. Warren and others are not only worried the U.S. might lose ISDS cases, but that expanding the ISDS regime will prevent governments from enacting future regulations.
There are other ways to enforce trade deals that do not elevate corporations to the same status of sovereign nations. Under World Trade Organization treaties, companies must first convince their home government to accept the case. The governments of the two countries then face off before WTO adjudicators.
Clinton has been cautious about Obama's TPP deal since launching her campaign. In mid-April, a Clinton spokesman issued a statement saying Clinton "will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation" and to "improve labor rights, protect the environment and health" in the final deal.
"We shouldn’t be giving special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers," the statement reads.
Obama opposes using TPP to combat currency manipulation -- a tactic by which Japan and China have been able to curb U.S. exports by making their own goods cheaper.
Other potential candidates for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, have been sharply critical of TPP.
Committees in the House and Senate approved legislation last week that would grant Obama "fast track" authority on trade, stripping Congress of its power to amend whatever deal the administration ultimately reaches.
Tea Party Senator Welcomes Hillary Clinton To Cause Of Criminal Justice Reform [McKay Coppins, BuzzFeed, April 30, 2015]
Republican Sen. Mike Lee welcomed Hillary Clinton’s high-profile support for his efforts to overhaul criminal sentencing guidelines — and said he was encouraged by prominent Democrats’ evolving views on criminal justice policy.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee told BuzzFeed News Thursday he welcomed Hillary Clinton’s high-profile support for his efforts to overhaul criminal sentencing guidelines — and said he was encouraged by prominent Democrats’ evolving views on criminal justice policy.
With violence enveloping Baltimore and demonstrators filling the streets to protest police brutality in the wake of Freddie Gray’s death, Clinton delivered a sharply worded speech Wednesday calling for an end to the “era of mass incarceration.” The Democratic presidential frontrunner proceeded to hail a “growing bipartisan movement” taking shape around these issues — and specifically name-checked Lee and Sen. Rand Paul as examples of conservatives joining the cause.
“Now, of course it is not enough just to agree and give speeches about it,” she said. “We actually have to work together to get the job done.”
Lee, a leading figure in the tea party movement, said he was “pleased” by the candidate’s praise.
“I didn’t necessarily start the day out thinking I was going to get a shout-out from Hillary Clinton,” he said, adding, “The Smarter Sentencing Act is a really good bill. We need to pass it.”
But Lee also noted that the new coalition of aisle-crossers Clinton highlighted is not just composed of Republicans who have seen the light — it also includes plenty of Democrats who are changing their positions, including Clinton herself.
On the issue of criminal sentencing, for example, Lee has drafted legislation with liberal Sen. Dick Durbin that would soften and in some cases eliminate federally mandated sentences for various types of drug offenders. But while Lee said the bill has been applauded by “prominent liberal Democrats and some prominent conservative Republicans,” many old-guard moderates in both parties have been resistant.
He said Democrats like Clinton have “absolutely” evolved on the issue, and some are only now conceding “that the one-size-fits-all mandatory minimum approach … is not one that can be treated as though it’s etched in stone.”
Lee’s comments echo those of his libertarian-leaning Senate colleague. On Wednesday Paul’s presidential campaign released a statement arguing that Hillary Clinton is “trying to undo some of the harm inflicted by the Clinton administration” and “emulating proposals introduced by Senator Rand Paul over the last several years.” The release cheekily added, “We welcome her to the fight.”
Of course, America’s left wing has long led the charge against tough-on-crime policies and aggressive policing tactics, which they argued had a ruinous effect on minority communities. But centrist Democrats like the Clintons looking to win national elections rarely aligned themselves with the left on these issues in the ’80s and ’90s. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a law that imposed harsher criminal sentences, expanded the death penalty, and allotted funds for more jails. Four years later, the first lady championed those policies in an op-ed, arguing for “tough measures that punish criminal behavior” and insisting that “young people who break the law are held accountable.”
As a senator Clinton went on to co-sponsor legislation aimed at addressing racial profiling and strengthening ties between police and inner-city communities. And by 2008, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, she railed against the GOP for their silence on these issues.
“You don’t hear the Republicans talking about any of this,” she said at the time. “You don’t hear them talking about the disgrace of a criminal justice system that incarcerates so many more African Americans proportionately than whites.”
But the political landscape has shifted considerably since then — while Clinton, serving as secretary of state, was withdrawn from domestic policy debates. Within the Republican Party, an ascendant libertarian movement has joined forces with certain elements of the religious right to advocate for an approach to criminal justice they say is more focused on efficacy, cost efficiency, and compassion.
The ideas have not yet fully taken hold in the GOP, where candidates have long benefited politically from their party’s reputation for cracking down on criminals. And just this week, a noisy chorus of talk-radio conservatives has used racially charged rhetoric to deride the “thugs” behind the unrest in Baltimore. But among the movement’s policy wonks, legislative efforts like Lee’s are increasingly popular.
Meanwhile, Lee contended that conservatives should see validation in the images coming out of Baltimore. For example, local faith leaders have reportedly played a key role in easing tensions and quelling violence in recent days — evidence, he said, that public policy should be geared toward strengthening churches and other private institutions with local credibility.
“I think it’s impossible for me to look at what’s happening there and not see the importance of civil society,” Lee said.
And in the now-famous footage of Baltimore mother Toya Graham indignantly dragging her teenage son off the chaotic streets, Lee saw the importance of fortifying families — a consistent emphasis in policymaking by social conservatives like himself.
“Moms are awesome,” Lee said, adding that his own mother would have done the same thing to him in that position. “I’m not sure I know a mom who wouldn’t.”
Martin O'Malley: 'We're all responsible' for Gray's death [Alexandra Jaffe, CNN, April 30, 2015]
Martin O'Malley accepted responsibility for implementing tough policing policies that many critics say have contributed to incidents like the recent death of Freddie Gray.
Washington (CNN) Martin O'Malley, the former Baltimore mayor and potential Democratic presidential contender, accepted responsibility for implementing tough policing policies that many critics say have contributed to incidents like the recent death of Freddie Gray.
Gray was a 25-year-old African-American man who suffered severe injury while in Baltimore police custody that lead to his death.
"We're all responsible," O'Malley told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview on "The Lead." "I was responsible when I decided to run for mayor in 1999 and I told people all across our city, 'Vote for me and together we will not only improve the policing of our streets, we'll improve the policing of our police, we'll expand drug treatment and we'll save a lot of young lives by intervening earlier."
O'Malley said that when he took office Baltimore had been "the most violent and addicted city in America," and defended his policies as successful.
O'Malley rose to prominence as a tough-on-crime mayor who used data and analytics to tackle everything from drugs and murder to basic city services. He also implemented a zero-tolerance policing strategy, in which even minor offenses are vigorously prosecuted.
On his watch, he said, Baltimore "went on to achieve a record reduction in violent crime."
"(There are) probably now 1,000 mostly young, poor African-American men who did not die violent deaths in our city" because of his policies, O'Malley said.
But those policies in Baltimore and elsewhere have drawn criticism in the wake of Gray's death under unknown circumstances in police custody.
The incident was the latest in a long line of deaths of African-American men at the hands of police that have inspired a nationwide debate over police treatment of minorities and criminal justice reform, and it sparked violent riots throughout the city over the weekend.
O'Malley, who also served as governor of Maryland, cut short a trip to Irelandcome back and address the unrest. He said that the events of the past week are a "setback," and described the situation as "one of our darkest days."
But O'Malley pushed back against criticism of his tough-on-crime policies as mayor, arguing that his successful elections and reduction in crime in the city proved his policies were both popular and worked.
He acknowledged, however, that achieving "balance" in a city's response to crime is tough.
Former Maryland governor: I may run for President 02:45
"Look, every mayor, I think, tries to get the balance right," he said. "I never once in my years as mayor ever had a single leader of a community, black or white, ever say to me, 'Mr. Mayor, I want less police presence in my neighborhood."
The former governor is expected to launch a presidential bid in the coming months, but declined to weigh in on comments from potential GOP rival Rand Paul that he was glad his train didn't stop in Baltimore, saying only that what GOP candidates for president say is "their choice."
But he did sideswipe Hillary Clinton, the heavy favorite for the Democratic Party nomination.
"Differently than Secretary Clinton, I've actually had experience on the ground making police departments more transparent and open," he said.
Still, O'Malley argued that the real issue uncovered by the series of deaths and subsequent unrest in communities across America isn't flawed policing policies -- it's that "America is failing America," and the economy is to blame.
"There's something deeper going on in this country and that is the anger, the seething anger that people feel when they're working harder, falling further behind, when they're marginalized by a brutal economy, when they see no hope for themselves, no hope for their kids. And this is not the way our country's supposed to work," he said.
"Yes, the touchstone, the flashpoint here is the tragic death of Freddie Gray, and law enforcement and race," he said. "But it's deeper than that. And that's what we need to face up to as a nation, and have a larger conversation, even as we do these individual cases the justice that Freddie Gray's life deserves."
Baltimore riots hurt O'Malley's already slim chances [James Hohmann, POLITICO, May 1, 2015]
Martin O’Malley’s political career, which started on the streets of Baltimore, may also end there: Half of Democratic insiders in the early states believe this week’s riots have hurt the former mayor’s already long-shot presidential hopes.
Martin O’Malley’s political career, which started on the streets of Baltimore, may also end there: Half of Democratic insiders in the early states believe this week’s riots have hurt the former mayor’s already long-shot presidential hopes.
The POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of the most important activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire, found that Democrats are evenly split over whether racial unrest will be a minor or significant issue in the presidential campaign.
“I really like and respect O’Malley, so it pains me to write that I think the Baltimore violence will essentially disqualify him as a viable presidential candidate for a broad swath of Americans,” said a New Hampshire Democrat, who – like all 73 respondents – completed the questionnaire anonymously in order to speak candidly. “The renaissance of Baltimore has been such a huge part of his biography when he speaks to Democrats, so when your TV shows Baltimore on fire, riot police on the streets and baseball at an empty Camden Yards, one can only wonder what kind of lasting progress he made there.”
On the Republican side, six in 10 insiders think the turmoil between African Americans and the police has injured Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul politically, though three-quarters of Republicans believe it will either be a non-issue or a minor one.
“Rand is advocating, in part, for reduced sentences for non-violent crimes,” said an Iowa Republican. “However, all anyone is going to see and hear is ‘Put more criminals back out on the street,’ and overlay that with the images that everyone is watching from the mayhem in Baltimore. How does he argue that being softer on crime would alleviate the rioting???”
Here are the six main takeaways from Week 12 of The POLITICO Caucus:
Changing his travel plans may not have helped O’Malley.
The former mayor and governor canceled paid speaking gigs in Europe to return home after the rioting on Monday. The attempt at damage control, which included an op-ed, failed to quell growing doubts about O’Malley’s rationale for seeking the presidency and spotlighted his controversial approach to policing during his eight years as mayor from 1999 to 2007.
“Returning to Baltimore was an odd move, especially considering there’s not much he can actually do about the unrest,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “By coming back he also made it easier to link his own police policies as mayor to the current situation.”
“Any mention of Baltimore will now draw people’s attention to the events of the last few days — not any of the progress he claims to have made while mayor,” said an Iowa Democrat.
“This is absolutely a hit on his executive experience,” added another. “He is running on his ability to turn Baltimore around and to lead Maryland in a progressive direction. His city is now seen for riots and racial injustice and his chosen successor [former Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown] lost the race to succeed him as governor.”
Several Democrats complained about O’Malley’s embrace of zero-tolerance policing tactics, which have been widely criticized this week by people like David Simon, the creator of the HBO crime drama “The Wire.” More than 108,400 arrests were made in 2005, according to the Baltimore Sun. For context, only about 600,000 people live in the city.
“The Anyone-But-Clinton crowd is on the left, and police-racial issues are a litmus test now,” said an Iowa Democrat.
O’Malley’s campaign-in-waiting said Thursday night that Baltimore saw a greater reduction of serious crimes during his tenure than any other major U.S. city. “When O’Malley was elected mayor in 1999, Baltimore was the most violent, addicted, and abandoned city in America,” spokeswoman Lis Smith emailed reporters .”His policies — including proactive policing, policing of the police, increased drug treatment, and earlier intervention with at-risk youth — fundamentally changed the trajectory of the city of Baltimore.”
Six in 10 Republicans agreed that the events of this week are damaging to O’Malley, and many of those who didn’t argued that it’s not damaging because he was already irrelevant. “It’s difficult for O’Malley to sink any lower than the 1 percent current polls have him at,” said a Granite Stater. “Right now, he has the ability to luxuriate in the purity of his irrelevance.”
Most think Rand mishandled the Baltimore blow-up.
Paul has closely identified himself with criminal justice reform, traveling to Ferguson, Mo., last year and spending a lot of time engaging with the African-American community.
More than six in 10 Republicans surveyed said that they thought the violence in Baltimore would benefit candidates who back more traditional Republican positions on crime at Paul’s expense.
“The more there is chaos both abroad and at home — the less Republican caucus-goers are going to take a risk on libertarian-oriented policies that Paul is selling,” said an Iowa Republican. “On the domestic front, personal security still trumps civil liberties with GOP voters.”
“The events in Baltimore break down neatly along ideological lines,” added a New Hampshire GOPer. “For Republican voters, this is another reason to stress the rule of law and a strong police presence. For Democrats, this is another instance of the breakdown of race relations and the need for ‘criminal justice reform.’ Both are unhelpful for Rand, who risks looking soft on crime, and [Hillary] Clinton, who now has to explain the change in tone on her tough on crime rhetoric from the 1990s to her speech this week talking about the need for cameras on cops everywhere.”
Democrats were evenly split 50-50 on whether Baltimore is good or bad for Paul.
The third of Republican insiders who think Baltimore is a plus for Paul predicted he will ultimately get credit for tackling this tough issue once the imagery of the moment dies down.
“While the violence is inexcusable, the frustration and peaceful protests are legitimate,” said an Iowa Republican. “Rand Paul is the only Republican who’s getting it. If the GOP fails to understand why people are unhappy with what they’re getting from the criminal justice system, then the Democrats hold the White House. It really is that simple.”
Another Iowa Republican staked out a more nuanced position: “Baltimore probably tilts to helpful for Rand to get his message out, but for every non-traditional supporter he appeals to on the issue, he likely turns off a social conservative he’s desperately trying to secure.”
Since announcing his presidential campaign last month, Paul has discernibly shifted his tone. On Tuesday, he told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that he was “glad” his train hadn’t stopped in Baltimore on the way back to D.C. the night before as he expressed concern about “the plight of police.” Then, during the same radio hit, he blamed the violence on “the breakdown of the family structure, the lack of fathers, the lack of sort of a moral code in our society.”
This was too much for many Democratic respondents to The Caucus, who pointed out that the senator’s 22-year-old son was charged just last week for driving under the influence of alcohol after crashing into a parked car.
“He would have gotten a pass on the incident regarding his son because it’s not fair game, but he made it fair game with his remarks about fathers’ responsibilities for their sons in Baltimore,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “Voters don’t like hypocrisy.”
There’s bipartisan agreement: Hillary’s tough-on-crime rhetoric from the ‘90s makes no difference now.
Seventy percent of both Republican and Democratic insiders said the 21-year-old crime bill signed by Bill Clinton, which temporarily led to 100,000 more cops on the street while fueling the massive surge in incarceration, is neither helpful nor hurtful to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes.
After the former secretary of state delivered a speech Wednesday calling for the end of mass incarceration and recommended police departments have their officers wear body cameras, Paul issued a press release pointing out that she was a cheerleader for the policies that created the underlying problems at First Lady: “Not only is Hillary Clinton trying to undo some of the harm inflicted by the Clinton administration, she is now emulating proposals introduced by Senator Rand Paul over the last several years, and we welcome her to the fight.”
An overwhelming number of Democratic insiders said Bernie Sanders could not carry their state against the Republican nominee in a general election | Getty
Two-thirds of Republican insiders don’t think this line of attack has legs, while one-third said it will be harmful for Clinton.
“Hillary is advocating for sentencing and prison reforms that lighten punishment for certain crimes,” said an Iowan. “That’s her position, not some long-forgotten crime bill her husband signed.”
“Opinions on Hillary are set,” said another. “All these issues do is cement what you already think.”
One in five Democrats said the 1994 efforts will be helpful, while one in 10 said they are harmful.
“Bill Clinton showed that you can reduce crime and offer support to law enforcement without blowing up race relations in the country,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.
Democrats are divided over how big of a deal this issue will be in 2016.
About half of Democratic insiders think that the racial unrest will become a significant issue in 2016, and the other half say it will be a minor issue.
“This is our 7.8 earthquake,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “Just like Nepal, we should have expected it, and just like Nepal we did nothing to prepare but chose to ignore. The difference is Nepal is poor, and we are rich. A pox on us!”
“We are now likely at a tipping point and can expect to see more marches and rallies moving toward the presidential elections,” said another. “Moreover, this is not simply a matter of racial tensions. It also involves income inequality and the fact that we are leaving millions of our citizens behind. Our candidates are going to be pressed for their plans to address these issues.”
The Democrats who said it will be a minor issue explained why it is such a tough topic to talk about.
“Man, this is complicated,” said another New Hampshire Democrat. “Libertarian Republicans and progressive Democrats both have been complaining about the militarization of the police, and the use of Homeland Security resources to obtain military equipment. On the other hand, most cops are good cops, and I think most people get that. Candidates will have to walk a fine line on how to be supportive of racial justice without throwing good cops under the bus. These guys are out there every day, working for us and putting their lives at risk, but meanwhile way too many African Americas are getting killed or incarcerated.”
Republicans were much more likely to say that racial tensions will be a minor issue.
“They don’t involve constituencies that vote in Republican primaries,” said a New Hampshire Republican.
“There have been too many incidents for them not to matter, but the campaign will be about bigger-scope issues,” said another.
Many Republican strategists said the party needs to offer smart solutions.
“Republicans need to be careful to not pigeonhole this simply as a failure of government and a repudiation of the Great Society program,” said an Iowan.
Very few take Bernie Sanders seriously.
The Vermont independent senator formally kicked off his bid for the Democratic nomination on Thursday, but more than 90 percent of Democratic insiders in the two early states said there is no way Sanders could win their state’s caucus or primary. GOP insiders answered similarly.
The same overwhelming number said Sanders could not carry their state against the Republican nominee in a general election.
“A socialist winning outside of Vermont? Hard to believe,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.
“The Clinton campaign should be ecstatic,” said another. “Sen. Sanders gives Hillary the benefit of a credible primary opponent who has absolutely no chance of winning. She can now comfortably continue her progressive window-dressing while still looking practical and moderate in comparison.”
“He isn’t the right messenger,” said a third. “He will get some support in our primary. But, people want to win, and New Hampshire Democrats have been very astute in recent years in nominating candidates who can win, like [Sen.] Jeanne Shaheen, [former Gov.] John Lynch and [Gov.] Maggie Hassan, even if the candidates are more moderate than the primary base voters. They will want Secretary Clinton to be more moderate than Bernie Sanders because they will want a candidate who can win.”
As a Republican put it, “he is only a fly in the ointment.”
Several GOP insiders lamented that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did not get into the race. “Unlike the Senator from the state on New Hampshire’s southern border, Sanders doesn’t have the polish of a Warren needed to play in New Hampshire,” said a Republican there. “The Granite State has typically eschewed the angry candidates — Pat Buchanan in 1996 aside — in favor of the more composed.”
New Hampshire Democrats are far more likely to believe Sanders will pull Clinton to the left than the Iowans.
Overall, Democratic insiders were evenly split when asked whether the Sanders challenge will force the frontrunner to tack left. But opinions varied by state: A majority in New Hampshire did, but a majority in Iowa did not.
“He’s just a gnat buzzing around the Scooby Van right now,” said an Iowa Democrat. “She has written off the college towns and Fairfield to Sanders. But that is his ceiling.”
“He absolutely will pull her to the left in New Hampshire,” responded a Democrat there. “He will enjoy significant support in western cities and towns bordering Vermont — Hanover, Lebanon, Claremont and Keene — and may earn some key liberal supporters on the college campuses, in Concord and along the Seacoast too.”
Iowa Democrats said that Clinton, to the extent she goes left, will be forced in that direction by the outside influence of Warren and others like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio or O’Malley.
“Clinton has already been pulled to the proverbial left — a great example is her focus on economic inequalities and criminal justice reform,” said an Iowa Democrat. “But do I think she’s going to go down the single-payer route because Bernie is in the race? No. Will she be as hard charging against Wall Street as Bernie? No. Will this enable him to garner support? Yes.”
A lot of Republicans said it all depends on how seriously progressive activists take him. “Folks thought little of Howard Dean in the beginning as well,” a New Hampshire Republican said of another Vermonter.
“Not sure if HRC will take the bait,” said an Iowa Republican, “but it’ll be entertaining as hell to watch Sanders try.”
These are the members of The POLITICO Caucus (not all of whom participated this week):
Iowa: Tim Albrecht, Brad Anderson, Rob Barron, Jeff Boeyink, Bonnie Campbell, Dave Caris, Sam Clovis, Sara Craig, Jerry Crawford, John Davis, Steve Deace, John Deeth, Derek Eadon, Ed Failor Jr., Karen Fesler, David Fischer, Doug Gross, Steve Grubbs, Tim Hagle, Bob Haus, Joe Henry, Drew Ivers, Jill June, Lori Jungling, Jeff Kaufmann, Brian Kennedy, Jake Ketzner, David Kochel, Chris Larimer, Chuck Larson, Jill Latham, Jeff Link, Dave Loebsack, Mark Lucas, Liz Mathis, Jan Michelson, Chad Olsen, David Oman, Matt Paul, Marlys Popma, Troy Price, Christopher Rants, Kim Reem, Craig Robinson, Sam Roecker, David Roederer, Nick Ryan, Tamara Scott, Joni Scotter, Karen Slifka, John Smith, AJ Spiker, Norm Sterzenbach, John Stineman, Matt Strawn, Phil Valenziano, Jessica Vanden Berg, Nate Willems, Eric Woolson, Grant Young
New Hampshire: Charlie Arlinghaus, Arnie Arnesen, Patrick Arnold, Rich Ashooh, Dean Barker, Juliana Bergeron, D.J. Bettencourt, Michael Biundo, Ray Buckley, Peter Burling, Jamie Burnett, Debby Butler, Dave Carney, Jackie Cilley, Catherine Corkery, Garth Corriveau, Fergus Cullen, Lou D’Allesandro, James Demers, Mike Dennehy, Sean Downey, Steve Duprey, JoAnn Fenton, Jennifer Frizzell, Martha Fuller Clark, Amanda Grady Sexton, Jack Heath, Gary Hirshberg, Jennifer Horn, Peter Kavanaugh, Joe Keefe, Rich Killion, Harrell Kirstein, Sylvia Larsen, Joel Maiola, Kate Malloy Corriveau, Maureen Manning, Steve Marchand, Tory Mazzola, Jim Merrill, Jayne Millerick, Claira Monier, Greg Moore, Matt Mowers, Terie Norelli, Chris Pappas, Liz Purdy, Tom Rath, Colin Reed, Jim Rubens, Andy Sanborn, Dante Scala, William Shaheen, Stefany Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter, Terry Shumaker, Andy Smith, Craig Stevens, Kathy Sullivan, Chris Sununu, James Sununu, Jay Surdukowski, Donna Sytek, Kari Thurman, Colin Van Ostern, Deb Vanderbeek, Mike Vlacich, Ryan Williams


Download 0.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
full range
south side
presidential election
special committee
actual impact
former secretary