Hillary Clinton and the Establishment don't get it

Dear Friends,

The Establishment (Republican, Democratic, business and media) all knew that Jeb Bush would be the Republican Presidential nominee and that Donald Trump was a joke and going nowhere.  The Establishment knew that Bernie Sanders was a fringe candidate whose campaign would go nowhere.  The financial markets knew that Great Britain would stay in the European Union and showed it when the Dow Jones Average rose to18,008 before Great Britain voted to exit the EU and the Dow dropped to 17,401.

The Establishment is completely out of touch with the reality of average people.  These people are frustrated with income and wealth inequality, with the fact that they are unemployed, underemployed and/or working harder and making less than a decade ago, with the fact that the political and economic systems are controlled by big business and the ultra wealthy, with the fact that they are powerless over their destinies and with the status quo in general.

Hillary Clinton is well entrenched in the Establishment and is just as clueless about the frustration of the people as the rest of the Establishment.  She is clearly not taking the advice I offered her in my blog (here).  She continues to campaign on the basis that she is better than Donald Trump, that she has experience and that she is practical.  She is essentially saying that she will continue to work the way that President Obama has, trying to convince the Republicans to take baby steps to solve our problems, but she will be better at it than he is.

On Tuesday, June 22, Secretary Clinton gave her much touted economic speech in Raleigh, North Carolina.  It was the perfect opportunity for her to announce some bold initiatives, but she simply reiterated her five point plan.  It was a rehash without any details of her plan as put forth during the primary campaign. She lacked passion and credibility.  The following sentence typifies her speech:

We'll say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which does not meet my high bar for creating good-paying jobs.

She has never made any attempt to explain why she was a strong advocate of NAFTA and called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the gold standard of trade agreements, before Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others forced her to the left.  Until she acknowledges and explains away her past, she will continue to lack credibility and be unable to generate excitement.

She made this economic speech two days before the Brexit vote as the financial geniuses were pushing the Dow back to 18,000 because, of course, Britain would vote to stay in the EU.  She was living in the Establishment bubble.  After the Brexit vote, instead of changing her approach, she doubled down.  In her official statement, she said

This time of uncertainty only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House...

The Establishment believes that Donald Trump does not stand a chance to win the Presidency.  So far this year the Establishment has been wrong every time.  The Real Clear Politics Electoral Map (here) has Hillary Clinton with 211 electoral votes, Donald Trump with 164 electoral votes and 163 electoral votes undecided.  The undecided states are pretty much the ones that always fall into that category, and the recent polls in those states are within the margin of error.  There is no question that this election will be decided by which party is better at getting people to vote.  While there will be people who will show up to vote to vote against Donald Trump, to ensure that Hillary Clinton wins, she needs to start to generate enthusiasm and excitement among the people who were energized by Bernie Sanders.  So far she does not even appear to be trying to accomplish that result.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Advice for Hillary Clinton, her supporters and pro-Hillary media

Dear Friends,

Last night Bernie Sanders made a great speech to his supporters.  It was done over the internet (here) and as far as I can tell was not broadcast by anybody else.  In the speech he made two very clear points.  First, he said that the most important thing in the next five months was to defeat Donald Trump and that he would soon be devoting his time to obtain that result.  Second, he said that the political revolution must continue so that we can transform the Democratic Party and our country.  He did not endorse Hillary Clinton nor did he drop out of the race but neither did he mention his own candidacy for President or a third party.  He focused on transforming the Democratic Party and our country from within the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has continually said during this campaign that she is working hard to earn everybody's vote.  The clear implication from Bernie Sanders' speech was that the ball is in her court to earn the votes and perhaps even the enthusiastic support of his supporters.  Unfortunately, so far Secretary Clinton has failed to make any attempt to earn the votes of the Sanders's supporters.  I can find no statement by her about the speech, not even an acknowledgement that it happened.  Ignoring Bernie Sanders will not help her earn the votes of his supporters.

Secretary Clinton was not the only one to ignore him, the media ignored him as well.  Rachel Maddow, who has been unable to hide her support for Hillary Clinton, gave his speech just a few minutes of coverage and in that time she ridiculed him and misconstrued what he had said.  In the part of the speech where Senator Sanders encouraged his supporters to get involved at all levels of politics to elect progressive candidates, he encouraged them to run for office.  What he was proposing was that the Democratic Party work to elect city council members, school board members, state legislators and governors in all 50 states.  Rachel Maddow's voice was full of ridicule as she reported that he encouraged his supporters to run for office.  This strategy has been incredibly successful for the Republicans.  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party establishment only embraces populist efforts to reach out to all people in Presidential elections.  Ridiculing what has been demonstrated to be a very effective strategy is not the way to earn the votes of Sanders' supporters.

My advice to Hillary Clinton (and her supporters) if she wants to earn the votes of Sanders' supporters is that she should:

• Truly, passionately and vocally embrace the new positions that she has taken on things like the TPP, Keystone Pipeline and drilling in the Arctic.
• Take the final step to eliminate small policy differences with Bernie Sanders on issues such as (1) fracking (If she is going to regulate it out of existence, why not just ban it?); (2) breaking up the big banks (She says she will consider it.  She has had plenty of time to consider it, and she has never made a cogent argument against it, so break up the big banks.); and (3) $15 an hour minimum wage (she says she supports the $15 an hour movement but refuses to endorse it stopping at $12 which while a big improvement falls short of lifting people out of poverty, so endorse a $15 an hour federal minimum wage.)
• Passionately embrace bold plans to transform our country including, significant tax increases on the very wealthy (Her very minimal increases are not sufficient to address our needs for funds or to reduce with the wealth and income inequality.) and meaningful infrastructure spending (Her proposal for $275 billion is without detail and completely insufficient to meet our needs and stimulate our economy.  Consider a plan more like Senator Sanders' detailed plan for $1 trillion.)
• Embrace healthcare as a right and lay out a clear plan for how her changes in Obamacare will lead to healthcare for all.
• On issues where she cannot in good faith move toward Senator Sanders' positions, engage in an open dialogue about those issues in which she truly listens and engages even if she does not ultimately change her position.  
• Demonstrate her commitment to getting big money out of politics.  Even though she takes big money, lay out a clear plan for how she will move from our money tainted and broken system today to a political and economic system not dominated by big money in the future.
• Enthusiastically embrace the reformation of the Democratic Party's primary process: eliminate caucuses; eliminate super delegates; hold open, same day registration primaries; and ban big money contributions to the DNC as President Obama did.
• Do not rely on the "I'm better than Donald Trump" approach.  Demonstrate that she is progressive and wants the Democratic Party and the country to transform itself.
• Appoint a true progressive, not an incrementalist, as her vice president.

There are, of course, many other things that Secretary Clinton could, and I hope, will do but these might give the Sanders' supporters the confidence in her that they need in order to vote for her and perhaps even work hard for her election not just against the election of Donald Trump.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Voter Turnout

Dear Friends,

The Clinton campaign and its supporters have been spending a lot of time lately telling supporters of Bernie Sanders that they need to vote for Hillary Clinton or they are essentially voting for Donald Trump and that Bernie Sanders need to drop out of the race and work for Hillary Clinton because he has no chance of winning.  Besides Hillary Clinton has already announced that she is the nominee.  I have read a couple of articles that are worth your time to read.

The first is by Seth Abramson on Huffpost Politics entitled " How to Explain the Sanders Campaign to an Idiot, Paul Krugman or a Clintonite in 8 Sentences" (here).  Despite the snarkiness of the title, the post contains a cogent argument for why the Sanders campaign should continue until all the votes are cast at the Democratic convention.

The second is a post by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams entitled "No, I Won't Work for Hillary Clinton: A Response to Robert Reich" (here).  It is a very thoughtful and thought provoking piece in response to a Facebook post by Robert Reich (here) who had given advice to the supporters of Hillary Clinton and to the supporters to Bernie Sanders.  The advice to the supporters of Bernie Sanders is as it always is - Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump and if you do not vote for her you are essentially voting for Donald Trump and how can you stand to do that.  Anyway, while I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, the post certainly made me think.

All of this talk of blaming Sanders' supporters if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination and loses to Donald Trump got me thinking about voter turnout.  So I did some research.

Counting caucuses, Bernie Sanders has received probably somewhere around 11,000,000 votes so far.  For my purposes I would divide that group into a group of Democrats like me who vote every election and certainly every Presidential election and for whom this year will be no different.  The other group is a group of people who do not vote every election or even every Presidential election.  Who knows the percentages but let's say 50/50.  So maybe by the time the voting is done there will be   7,000,000 but certainly less 10,000,000 Sanders' supporters who are at risk of not voting.  That sounds like a large number, and it is but it pales compared to the number of Americans who just plain do not vote.

A little over a year ago, the Pew Research Center published a report on the voter turnout for the 34 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (here), basically the world's leading industrialized democracies.  Of the 34 countries, the United States ranked 31st in turns of voter turnout with just 53.6% of voting age people voting.  Belgium ranked first with 87.2% of voting age population, and Germany was right in the middle at 17th with 66% of voting age population.  To put these percentages into perspective.  In 2008 Obama got 69.3 million votes and beat McCain by 9.7 million votes.  If 66% of the voting age population had voted (same as Germany), there would have been an additional 17.5 million votes cast, more than double the margin of victory.  If 87.2% of the voting age population had voted (same as Belgium), there would have been an additional 65.3 million votes, almost 7 times the margin of victory.

The problem with the American electoral system is that we do not have a culture of voting.  I believe in large part the lack of voting is the direct result of the lack of exciting candidates and the almost constant problem of voting for the lesser of two evils.  I calculated the percentage of the voting age population that the winners in the last nine Presidential elections.  In only two elections did the winner get more than 30% of the voting age population - Reagan in 1984 with 31.1% and Obama in 2008 with 30.7%.  The average is about 27%, just over a quarter of the voting age population voted for the person who became President.  A democracy should not work like that.

This year both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are making the lesser of two evils argument all the time.  Donald Trump's best argument for Republicans and Independents is that he is not Hillary Clinton and many Republicans and Independents will vote for him as the lesser of two evils.  Hillary Clinton's best argument for Democrats and Independents is that she is not Donald Trump and many Democrats (including me) and Independents will vote for her if she gets the nomination for just that reason - the lesser of two evils.

As a country, we must do more to develop a culture of voting so that the majority can govern.  We could start with automatic voter registration and a national holiday for election day.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal