CNN political correspondent Nia-Malika Henderson said on Thursday that Donald Trump's constant talk of voter fraud in the "inner cities" is coded racist language.
The ongoing talk of a "rigged" election and calls for his supporters to monitor polling places, Henderson said, make Trump "the chairman of the white grievance party."
When conservatives freak out about voter fraud -- a passingly rare problem that has never been a major factor in a U.S. election -- Henderson said they portray it as something that happens in cities, perpetrated by Democrats and black voters.
When Trump "goes to these audiences that are overwhelmingly white, he tells these audiences that they need to check the polling places in other places, not in their own precincts but in other places," Henderson said.
That is a "dangerous line of rhetoric," she said, "but it is in keeping with the way Donald Trump has run this campaign. It's a very 'us versus them' campaign, all about white grievance politics. And how he's sort of the chairman of the white grievance party in some ways."
Trump is setting himself up to be the "ultimate victim," she said, with his whining and carping about the unfairness of it all.
Scottie Nell Hughes launched an unhinged tirade on abortion during a CNN discussion of Wednesday night's third and final presidential debate.
CNN's Alisyn Camerota asked Hughes to explain what Trump meant when he inaccurately claimed that women could -- and did -- get abortions the day before their due date.
"For those of us in the pro-life movement, it doesn't matter if it's one day or all the way up to a few weeks before birth," Hughes said. "Having an abortion is murder to us, so the killing of a baby -- partial-birth abortion, which Hillary Clinton did support -- even if it's 20 weeks into their due date, is just murder in our viewpoint."
She trotted out the bizarro-feminist argument that abortion was harmful to women because half of fetuses were statistically likely to be female.
"Mr. Trump took a hard stance (Wednesday), saying that he would fight hard to make sure that the future generation of women would have a chance to live," Hughes said.
CNN's Chris Cuomo asked Hughes whether she agreed that a woman had a right to decide what happened to their own body, and the Trump surrogate argued that only some types of abortions should be outlawed.
"We're talking about women who have started to use this as a version of birth control, who has had multiple abortions, who sit there and decide, they find out a genetic test their child might have some sort of mental handicap and decide that they just don't think they can handle that type of child," Hughes said. "That is what makes them decide to have an abortion. Those issues right there -- yes, I'm sorry, that child does have a right to live."
Sanders called out Trump for using graphic language to trigger an emotional response to his misleading claims about abortion, and Hughes responded by bringing up the case of a Philadelphia physician convicted of murder for killing three infants and a patient during attempted abortions.
"The killing of a baby, like what we saw with Dr. (Kermit) Gosnell, is graphic, and I think Americans need to know the truth about what abortion is," Hughes said. "When you do have babies that come out that you can actually tell that they are a life form, so those of us in the pro-life movement who have studied what abortions do, and children who have come out still alive and then are murdered -- yes, those stories need to be told, I think, a little bit more. And then maybe we would have women have more of an appreciation for life before they ended it."
Trump surrogate Betsy McCaughey's arguments about "rampant" voter fraud were so grossly inaccurate on Thursday that CNN host Carol Costello threatened to shut down the interview.
After Donald Trump suggested at Wednesday's debate that he might not accept the election results, McCaughey told Costello that "this nation has been victimized by rampant election fraud."
"There's so much evidence of it this year," McCaughey insisted.
"That's not true," Costello pointed out.
"The Pew Foundation says one out of every eight voter registrations is either a dead person, a duplicate or an illegal voter," McCaughey droned on.
The CNN host reminded McCaughey that Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who supports Trump, rebuked the GOP nominee for making "irresponsible" rigged election claims.
"There is rampant fraud in New York!" McCaughey exclaimed. "The incumbents always protect the system!"
"I can't!" Costello interrupted, raising her voice. "There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country."
McCaughey, however, continued: "Between 2 and 5 percent of illegal voters vote."
"Stop!" Costello demanded. "Or I'm going to have to cut this interview short."
"You don't want people to hear the evidence?" McCaughey shot back.
"I have presented the evidence to my viewers," Costello said. "And my viewers trust me to tell them the truth. We've cited studies, I've talked to secretaries of state who are Republicans. I've talked to many Republican officials."
"I don't know why the Democratic Party insists on defending fraudulent voter rolls," the Trump surrogate opined.
"Because it's not happening!" Democratic strategist Sally Kohn shouted.
Watch part 1 and part 2 below from CNN, broadcast Oct. 20, 2016.
In 2004, director Michael Moore took on George W. Bush in "Fahrenheit 9/11." On Tuesday, the filmmaker surprised his fans with news that he would debut his new film about Donald Trump.
"Michael Moore in TrumpLand" will have a free pre-screening Tuesday night in New York, he announced on Twitter.
The movie is apparently based on his failed efforts to stage a one-man show about Trump in an Ohio theater. Moore said it was cancelled because he was told he was too controversial.
Moore is known for left-leaning political activism and his fierce opposition to the Republican presidential nominee.
"See the film Ohio Republicans tried to shut down. Oscar-winner Michael Moore dives right into hostile territory with his daring and hilarious one-man show, deep in the heart of TrumpLand in the weeks before the 2016 election," according to the synopsis offered by the IFC Center theater in Brooklyn.
The film's regular run at the theater will begin Wednesday.
Moore, who will attend Tuesday's screening, somewhat famously predicted that Trump would win the Republican primaries.
Moore backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. He has not endorsed Hillary Clinton, citing her support for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 while serving as a New York senator.
It is Moore's second film release this year, after "Where to Invade Next." In that movie, he played a pseudo conqueror who plants the US flag wherever he goes, baffling onlookers.
Moore uses the term "invasion" to mean plundering other nations' notions of happy workers, good education, humane prisons and empowered women.
The Oscar-winning filmmaker is best known for directing documentaries such as "Bowling for Columbine" (2002), which takes on American gun culture; "Fahrenheit 9/11," which skewers the George W. Bush administration's response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and "Roger & Me" (1989), about his efforts to talk to the head of General Motors about the impact of plant closures in Flint, Michigan.
Moore won an Oscar in 2003 for best documentary feature for "Bowling for Columbine."
The third and final debate of the caustic 2016 US presidential election started with a sober tone... but ended up with Donald Trump questioning the fundamental underpinnings of the nation. Here are four key moments:
- November 9 -
If Americans entered the debate concerned about what happens the day after this brutally fought election, Trump did little to assuage their fears.
An hour into the 90-minute battle, the Republican nominee was asked whether he would respect the election result and concede if he lost. His answer will go into the history books.
"I'll look at it at the time. What I've seen is so bad," he said, repeating unfounded allegations of vote rigging.
Fellow Republicans rushed to denounce him, and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton declared herself "appalled" by what she said was an attack on 240 years of US democracy.
- Puppetry -
Asked about embarrassing leaked emails, Clinton pivoted to Trump's much scrutinized relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Republican's refusal to pin the leaks on Moscow.
Clinton suggested Putin wanted a "puppet" in the White House, which prompted a remarkable exchange.
"No puppet. No puppet," said Trump, talking over Clinton. "You're the puppet!"
"No, you're the puppet," he continued.
Composing himself, Trump said "I never met Putin. This is not my best friend. But if the United States got along with Russia, it wouldn't be so bad."
- 'Bad hombres' -
Both Clinton and Trump threw plenty of meat to their core political bases -- ticking boxes on guns, abortion and taxes.
Trump was again on the defensive over his policy of forcibly deporting millions of illegal migrants.
"We have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," he said.
Clinton described that as an idea "that would rip our country apart."
- Nasty woman -
Some of the sharpest exchanges came when Trump accused Clinton and her campaign team of drumming up allegations that he has groped several women.
"I believe," Trump said, "she got these people to step forward," accusing Clinton of running a "very sleazy campaign" and adding of the claims aired by several women dating back decades: "It was all fiction."
Trump boasted, "I didn't even apologize to my wife," saying he did nothing wrong and so had nothing to apologize for.
Later, when the topic turned to taxes, Clinton suggested that Trump might try to wriggle his way out of paying.
"Such a nasty woman," Trump said, leaning into the microphone.
Donald Trump sailed into another political tempest Thursday after threatening not to recognize the outcome of the US presidential election in a final debate with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner.
With the November 8 elections just 19 days away, the face-off in Las Vegas was seen as the Republican nominee's last best chance to turn around a sinking White House bid.
But with millions watching on television, a defiant Trump turned what many thought began as his strongest debate performance yet into a gift to Clinton and another major headache for Republicans.
Asked point-blank whether he would accept the results of the elections no matter what, the 70-year-old reality television star said: "I'll tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, OK?"
Clinton declared herself "appalled" by what she said was an attack on 240 years of US democracy.
Quoting her former rival Bernie Sanders, she called Trump the "most dangerous person to run for president in the modern history of America."
Trump's shattering of political convention dominated US newspaper headlines and television coverage.
- Worried Republicans -
Republicans worried about the impact of Trump's remarks on Republicans in down-ballot races.
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, offered assurances on MSNBC. "Barring massive voter fraud, of course he is going to accept the results of the elections," he said.
But Republican Senator Jeff Flake said Trump was "beyond the pale" and onetime presidential candidate Senator Lindsey Graham said if Trump loses, it will be "because he failed as a candidate".
Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, defended the candidate Thursday against charges of undermining US democracy.
"If anybody has added to American democracy in the last year and a half it's Donald Trump," she told CNN, while insisting her boss would respect the vote result "absent, widespread fraud or irregularities."
Democrats called on Republican leaders to repudiate "Trump's utter contempt for our democracy," as Nevada Senator Harry Reid put it.
"What he said tonight is part of his whole effort to blame somebody else for his campaign, and where he stands in this election," Clinton told reporters as she flew home to New York.
Trump left Las Vegas immediately after the debate, heading to swing state Ohio for a day of campaigning.
He meets up with Clinton again at the end of the day in New York at the Al Smith Dinner, an annual charity event where the candidates traditionally engage in a "friendly roast."
But the animosity between them seems almost certain to get in the way.
They would not even shake hands at Wednesday night's debate, and at one point Trump interrupted Clinton to call her "a nasty woman".
- 'Relieved and very grateful' -
Clinton, who is vying to become the first woman president of the United States, told reporters she was "both relieved and very grateful" that the debates were now behind her.
Polls show her leading by more than six points and making gains even in states like Arizona, Texas and Georgia that have long been in the Republican column.
"Hillary Clinton almost certainly will win the election, but the question is what is going to be the effect on Republican Senate, House and other candidates," said Robert Erikson, a political science professor at Columbia University.
On Thursday, Michelle Obama will be stumping for Clinton in Arizona and President Barack Obama will speak at a rally in Miami.
Obama earlier in the week told Trump to "stop whining" about a rigged election and go try to get people to vote for him.
But the New York billionaire plowed ahead anyway, paying no heed.
"The media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pile-on is so amazing," Trump said, referring to reports citing women accusing him of sexual assault, which he said were "fiction" and drummed up by Team Clinton.
He alleged that millions of fake voters had been registered and that the 68-year-old Clinton should not even have been allowed to run because she mishandled classified State Department emails.
- 'Puppet' talk -
The former secretary of state scored an early hit against the Republican real estate mogul, alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin was backing his run for office.
Trump argued that he might have better relations with Moscow than Clinton would, declaring: "Putin, from everything I see, has no respect for this person."
Clinton's response was sharp: "Well, that's because he would rather have a puppet as president of the United States."
Trump blustered back: "No puppet. You're the puppet."
The last remaining question about last night's debate was whether former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would post a factually challenged defense of Donald Trump refusing to say whether he would accept the results of the November election.
The answer, as if there was ever any doubt: You betcha!
In a Facebook rant about the debate, Palin attacked the media for criticizing Trump for saying he will keep the country "in suspense" when it comes to accepting the final election results.
You see, Palin believes that Trump shouldn't accept any election results unless he's 100% sure that there isn't any "cheating" at the polls, just as he should have never signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee for president unless he received fair treatment from the party as a whole.
"When Trump is pressed on this, it harkens back to all the GOP primary candidates who screamed at Trump to support the Republican nominee - no matter what - and Trump initially responded that he could, depending on fair treatment," she writes. "That is WISE and INSIGHTFUL! Trump got screwed in that deal when he eventually pledged to support the nominee and then some of his fellow candidates turned tail and refused to reciprocate when Trump won."
She then went on to say that Trump actually did America a service by alerting us all that Democrats were trying to swindle the country out of an election that should be Trump's.
"Trump gave potential cheaters fair warning that we'll not give them any quarter," she said. "We'll hold them accountable. They'd better be on their toes. Cheaters will not win. Of course Trump will accept the legitimate outcome of a legitimate election! What the heck is so hard to understand about that?"
What's "hard to understand" about it is that several secretaries of state -- including Republicans in swing states -- have said there is no way that the election is being "rigged" against Donald Trump, no matter how many times he says that it is. And given that Republicans are actually in charge of elections in key states such as Ohio, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina, it's hard to see how Trump could possibly lose the election due to supposed voter fraud.
Kellyanne Conway made the rounds Thursday morning to mop up the mess after Donald Trump threatened to upend American democracy if he loses the Nov. 8 election.
The Republican presidential nominee said Wednesday night during the third and final presidential debate that he hadn't decided whether he would accept the results if he lost, saying he would keep voters "in suspense."
Conway, his campaign manager, has been comparing Trump's pre-emptive concerns to Al Gore's decision to withdraw his concession after the excruciatingly close Florida vote in the 2000 presidential election.
"You know what happened next, we went on for six weeks until we found out who the president was," Conway said on CNN's "New Day."
CNN's Chris Cuomo said her comparison broke down at that point, because many Americans recall exactly what happened 16 years ago.
"That's the problem, though, because we all do know what happened in Florida -- and this is different," Cuomo said, as Conway shook her head. "Donald Trump is saying right now, with weeks to go, 'I think it could be rigged against me, so I'm not going to say I respect it.' That's not what happened in 2000, as we both know very well. There was an auto recount triggered, there was a legitimate issue as to who had won the state in a context where we knew at the time that the popular vote was against then-Gov. George Bush, and it was a state that was run by the GOP at the governor and the secretary of state level. It was George Bush who wound up having to appeal to the Supreme Court to decide the matter, and when they did, that's when Al Gore took the step of conceding the race. This is not an analogy to that."
Conway, who had been sitting quietly through Cuomo's history lesson, said she respectfully disagreed with his account -- but the CNN host reminded her of statements she and other Trump campaign officials made just prior to the debate.
"You can disagree -- except you said something different," Cuomo said. "Pence said something different, his daughter said something different than what he said last night -- and it sounds not just like whining, but disavowing the democratic process if it doesn't suit Donald Trump's personal preference. Is that right?"
Conway changed the subject to Hillary Clinton, and then asked Cuomo if he would have criticized Gore if he had known three weeks prior to the election exactly what would happen afterward.
"First of all, there were two people on the stage (Wednesday) night, and only one of them was whining, and it wasn't Donald Trump," Conway said. "Secondly, if you had had Al Gore in this seat 16 years ago, and you asked him the same question, Chris, if you said, 'Vice President Gore, if you win the popular vote and you're losing Florida by less than 600 votes that will be decisive to the election, will you concede the election?'"
Cuomo said her analogy was fatally flawed because there's no evidence at this point that the election has been rigged -- or that it might even be close.
"He has no reason to believe right now, Donald Trump, that it's rigged," Cuomo said, and Conway insisted that it could happen. "He keeps saying this."
Conway argued that the system was rigged against Trump, and argued that Cuomo knew that -- which the CNN host said he did not.
"Chris, 96 percent of the donations from journalists went to Hillary Clinton," Conway said. "That's an unbelievable statistic for working journalists, I mean, that's a partisan expression of support through your pocketbook."
Cuomo said reporters are generally discouraged from donating money to candidates.
"Certainly we're not allowed to give it -- and this is a man who was made by the media," Cuomo said. "So this idea of being nasty to him on purpose doesn't wash with me, and you know that."
Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of archival stories related to the Affordable Care Act, more commonly called Obamacare.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump disagree on many, if not most, issues, and how to provide health insurance coverage for Americans is one of the most divisive. Clinton’s first foray into national politics began with her failed attempt to devise a plan for health care coverage, and she has long been linked in many people’s minds to that failure. Trump’s main position on the ACA is straightforward: Repeal it.
There is no doubt that the law is facing troubles that are not just political. Most notably, a number of insurers have exited the health insurance marketplaces created by the ACA, and consumers now face double-digit premium increases in the new open enrollment period that begins Nov. 1.
The law came up in Trump’s last answer of the final debate last night. When Chris Wallace asked how the candidates would control the rising costs of entitlements, Trump said repealing the law is key. Clinton strongly disagreed.
“Repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare,” Trump answered when asked how to control the costs of entitlement programs. “Obamacare has to go… She wants to make it even worse.”
“If he repeals it, our Medicare problem gets worse,” Clinton said in response.
More insured
The Affordable Care Act is complex and complicated, mixing government mandates and oversight with marketplace forces. The goal, however, was simple: Decrease the number of uninsured across the country.
On that score, economists Jim Marton and Charles Courtemanche at Georgia State University explained recently that the law has indeed broadened coverage to many Americans, writing:
“If you look at our numbers, however, it is hard to escape the fact that it has helped 20 million people over three years gain insurance coverage – one of the law’s primary objectives.”
Premium hikes
But, Trump’s point about rising premiums is also hard to ignore. J.B. Silvers, an insurance and health care financing professor at Case Western Reserve University, explained that the premium hikes were due, in part, to a flaw in how the law was written. Silvers wrote that the law’s design has allowed Congress to block funds to insurance companies that would limit their losses. Thus, the companies are forced to raise premium prices to make up for those losses.
“Because Congress has only allowed 12 percent of the amount due to insurance companies, the premium stabilization features have been insufficient to limit losses as the law envisioned. This gap was not anticipated in prior year rates by insurers, but it is built into the premiums this year. That’s part of the reason for the increases.”
Rationing health care?
While the administration has extolled its virtues and successes from the outset, Philip Rosoff, director of clinical ethics at Duke University Hospital, saw flaws from the first, including the marketplace forces that have led to insurers’ losses. Rosoff saw those forces as a drawback not because they would cost the insurers but because they would create a profit motive that should be disentangled from the system.
“The ACA builds upon our existing health insurance system in many ways. And, thus, it represents a gift to all of those who seek to profit from the health and illness of others.”
Trump’s alternatives
During the Republican National Convention, Trump talked less about health care than many other of his signature collection of talking points, such as immigration, China and terrorism.
In addition to calling for a full repeal of the law, Trump wants to allow insurers to sell across state lines, which he believes will cut costs. Bill Custer, director of the Center for Health Services Research at Georgia State University, offered this analysis of that piece of Trump’s health care plan:
“In 2011, the state of Georgia was the first state to pass a law similar to this proposal, but it has not found insurers willing to offer this coverage. At least 20 other states have since followed suit, but insurers are not sure they want to do this. Numbers are not available on how many insurers have applied in various states, but it is safe to say that the idea has not been popular.”
As for overturning the law, John McDonough, professor of public health practice at Harvard, wrote in March that repeal would be impossible without a full Republican takeover of the presidency, Senate and House.
Clinton’s public option
Clinton, meanwhile, has not given a lot of specifics on the parts of the law that need treatment.
Insurers pulling out of the marketplace and rising premiums for consumers are the two biggest issues. Richard Hirth and John Ayanian, health care policy experts at the University of Michigan, explained how Clinton’s proposals for a public option could be one way to help consumers deal with the rising costs. Yet, just as others note that Trump would have trouble in repealing the law, they note that Clinton would have trouble in passing a public option.
“The public option would further the primary goal of the ACA by expanding health insurance to as many Americans as possible, by offering an additional coverage option not currently available. But given Congress’ historical opposition to the public option and the ACA, the most likely route for public health insurance would be through states.”
Wednesday night’s debate, therefore, provided Trump with one final opportunity to rescue his flagging campaign. It also provided Clinton with one last chance to make her case to a national audience.
Despite the dramatic build-up, the result was anticlimactic. After two intense and volatile debates, the third and final debate offered only a few moments of drama.
But that was good news for Clinton. As the frontrunner, she didn’t need to win the debate. She just needed to survive it without any major gaffes, and she accomplished that goal.
Trump, in contrast, made the one major gaffe of the night. In an extraordinary and indefensible departure from historical precedent, Trump refused to agree in advance to accept the results of the presidential election. By preemptively assuming the role of sore loser, Trump signaled to the whole world that he expects to lose on election day.
Sharp exchanges but indecisive results
Trump was uncharacteristically subdued in the opening minutes of the debate. He was clearly aware of the latest poll results that show Clinton with a commanding lead. On Tuesday, Trump announced with a note of dejection in his voice, “I don’t even believe the polls.” It was a telling comment coming from the same candidate who during the Republican primaries had happily declared, “I love the polls!”
Clinton, in contrast, seemed more relaxed than in previous debates. Undoubtedly she has read the same polls that Trump has. She knows as well as anyone that the trend lines are moving unmistakably in her favor.
But 20 minutes into the debate Trump perked up when the topic turned to immigration. He proclaimed with enthusiasm that “we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out.”
For the remainder of the debate, Trump did a reasonably effective job of launching zingers at Clinton, particularly with regard to her own history of scandals and mistakes. But Clinton had plenty of good lines of her own. She claimed that Trump “choked” when he met with the Mexican president and failed to bring up the border wall issue. She also accused Trump of being a “puppet” of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
In the end there was almost nothing said by the candidates that was new. They both resorted to long-standing talking points, and even repeated verbatim statements they had made in previous debates.
Consequently, Wednesday night’s debate will probably not make much of an impact on the presidential race, which is an outcome the Clinton campaign should be quite happy with.
Squandered election for GOP
Clinton entered the debate with the wind at her back. On Wednesday night the New York Times Upshot forecast gave Clinton a 92 percent chance of winning the election. The Upshot’s prediction is strikingly similar to the forecasts of most other leading political analysts.
Wednesday’s inconclusive debate won’t change those forecasts. Instead, it seems the only question now is how large Clinton’s victory will be.
The closing days of the campaign bear all the hallmarks of an impending landslide. Clinton has a decisive lead in most of the key battleground states and holds a virtually insurmountable position in the Electoral College. Most remarkable of all, the latest polling data suggests that Clinton could win some of the most conservative states in the country, including Arizona, Georgia, and Alaska. Even Utah is up for grabs.
Republicans only have themselves to blame for the predicament they find themselves in. By any measure, Hillary Clinton is one of the most personally unpopular presidential candidates in history. The polls have consistently demonstrated that over 50 percent of Americans view her unfavorably. It seems likely that a mainstream Republican candidate, such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich or former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, could have easily defeated Clinton. But Republican primary voters had no interest in pragmatic establishment candidates like Kasich and Bush.
Instead Republicans chose as their nominee the one person in the country more unpopular than Hillary Clinton. The polls have consistently shown that over 60 percent of Americans view Donald Trump unfavorably, the highest negative rating of any presidential nominee in history.
Although Trump performed competently on Wednesday night, his debate performance will not erase from voters’ memories the crude, bigoted, and brazenly dishonest campaign he has waged since entering the presidential race with a xenophobic attack on Mexicans. Trump’s racist and sexist populism may have resonated with Republican primary voters, but it seems all but certain that it will flop with general election voters.
If Trump does indeed lose badly, his campaign will represent a self-inflicted wound on a massive scale for the Republican Party, a devastating blunder without parallel in modern American politics.
Focus turns to House and Senate races
As the outcome of the presidential election becomes increasingly clear, the focus of the media’s attention will turn to the Senate and House races. The latest polls suggest that the Democrats have a slightly better than even chance of netting the four seats they need to take operational control of the Senate.
The House, however, is a different story. Thus far, Trump’s calamitous campaign has not inflicted severe down ballot damage on Republican congressional candidates. The reason is in part because of gerrymandering, which gives incumbent Republicans very favorable district lines. Thus, although Congress has an abysmal approval rating of 18 percent, only 31 of the 247 House seats held by Republicans will be seriously contested on Nov. 8.
The bottom line is most political analysts expect that the Democrats will have a net pick up of about 15 seats, which is well short of the 30 they need to take the House.
But the jury is still out on the Democrats’ effort to win the House majority. When wave elections happen in congressional races, the momentum usually doesn’t show up in the polls until late October. For example, exactly 10 years ago, Republicans appeared certain to maintain their Congressional majority in mid-October 2006. But popular anger over the Iraq War and GOP scandals led to a late collapse in support for Republican incumbents, resulting in a stunning Democratic take over of both the House and the Senate.
History could repeat in 2016. A new Brookings Institute poll suggests that Democratic congressional candidates have surged to a 12-point lead on the generic ballot, which is the first indication that a Democratic wave could be taking shape. And just last week the Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan publicly speculated about a “nightmare” scenario in which Democrats could win control of the House.
Sore Loser
Fadumo Osman, left, political director for NYU College Democrats, watches the presidential debate, Oct. 19, 2016.
AP Photo/Julie Jacobson
Regardless of how the congressional races play out, the most pressing issue to emerge from Wednesday night’s debate is Trump’s irresponsible threat to challenge the legitimacy of the election’s outcome.
It’s clear he expects to lose. But what’s not clear yet is how much damage he will do to public confidence in the election system before his campaign is finally over. The 2016 election is already the ugliest presidential campaign in modern history and unfortunately it appears the final chapter hasn’t even been written yet.
Barack Obama has little time for the baby boomers who preceded him in the White House. As he famously wrote in his book The Audacity of Hope, the Clinton administration made him feel “as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation – a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago – played out on the national stage.”
The home stretch of the 2016 election is no less of a flashback. Just as a monster reunion of rock bands and icons from the 1970s draws huge crowds in California, a presidential election entering its final weeks looks set to put two of that generation’s central political figures, Hillary and Bill Clinton, back in power.
Clinton’s 2016 campaign is anything but anti-establishment, and she had to fight off a remarkable insurgency to her left from Bernie Sanders before taking on Donald Trump to her far right. Funny then to remember at the Clintons’ first national campaign in 1992 – back when it was the baby boomers themselves who took on George H.W. Bush’s sclerotic, remote establishment with a new style all their own.
This is nowhere better recorded than in The War Room, a fly-on-the-wall account of that remarkable campaign that became one of the most influential documentaries of its era.
The War Room follows the Clintons’ top campaign strategists, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, as they wage the key battles of the campaign: the plan of attack on Bush’s “Read my lips: no new taxes” pledge, the scandal of Clinton’s affair with Gennifer Flowers, the New Hampshire primary, the three debates with Bush and third-party candidate Ross Perot, and, eventually, Clinton’s victory.
Crucially, and in contrast to 2016, the office was staffed by people a generation younger than the staff of the opposing Bush camp. It buzzed with energy and reacted quickly to changing situations, an area where Hillary Clinton’s staff has often fallen short. As D.A. Pennebaker, one of the War Room’s directors, said: “It had that feeling of a group hanging out together rather than a group of people fiercely fostering a political vantage.”
At the top of the operation was Carville, known as “the ragin’ Cajun” and probably the best political strategist of his generation. He isn’t running Clinton’s 2016 campaign, but his zeal is still there: witness the title of his most recent book, We’re Still Right, They’re Still Wrong.
While he publicly turned down the opportunity to play the part of Donald Trump in Clinton’s preparation sessions for this year’s debates, he is at the end of the phone for her. His longstanding relationship with Bill Clinton means his advice is still valued. Combined with the experience of Bill himself, these factors should be an overwhelming force for victory.
But will 2016 play out like the victories in the 1990s or has the electorate changed? What role will the people from The War Room, still involved in the Democrat campaign, play in 2016? These include Jim Margolis, Mike Vlacich, Mandy Grunwald, John Podesta and Bill Clinton. George Stephanopoulos is ABC News Chief Anchor and very much outside the campaign.
Still thinking about tomorrow?
In 1992, the Clinton team saw themselves as the insurgents against the traditional Republican establishment of Bush – a conservative party against which the baby boomers of the New Democrats were rebelling. But in 2016, the Clintons are icons of the establishment. They clearly understand this, even joking that their political pursuits resemble nothing so much as The Antiques Roadshow.
Trump, meanwhile, has rallied an army of insurgents and outsiders who hold the US political elite in utter contempt. His unique ability to pander to this livid animus against all things established is a key part of his appeal. An incoherent, rambling billionaire railing against Wall Street and Goldman Sachs who relies overwhelmingly on support from the poorer parts of the white electorate should be beyond parody; instead, he’s a sobering and even frightening reality.
Still, it’s not as if blunt, detail-free soundbites haven’t won the day before. The slogans emblazoned on the wall of the 1992 Clinton headquarters could almost be Trump catch-alls: “Change vs. More of the Same”, “The Economy, Stupid”, “Don’t forget healthcare”, “The Debate Stupid”. And in a normal climate, Hillary Clinton could always fall back on the storied line about Bill Clinton’s presidency: “What didn’t you like, the peace or the prosperity?”
But this is not a normal election – and the “again” in Trump’s “Make America Great Again” mantra short-circuits any memory of the 1990s, instead reaching for a more atavistic sense of something long lost. And just as Trump’s campaign has shattered the Republican Party for a generation, it has entirely rewritten the book on what it means to be anti-establishment in the first place.
It’s an odd phenomenon, because awareness of the threat of climate change goes back more than half a century, well before its sudden arrival on public policy agendas in 1988.
“Tricky” Dick Nixon (1969-74) received a warning on the topic from Democratic senator Daniel Moynihan in September 1969.
A Nixon bureaucrat replied:
The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between… One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise.
A combination of growing scientific alarm about the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a long hot summer in 1988 made climate change an election issue. On the campaign trail, then-Vice President George H. W. Bush announced in his presidential compaign:
Those who think we’re powerless to do anything about the “greenhouse effect” are forgetting about the “White House effect”. As President, I intend to do something about it… In my first year in office, I will convene a global conference on the environment at the White House… We will talk about global warming… And we will act.
They didn’t get on with it, of course, with Bush, then president (1989-93), insisting that targets and timetables for emissions reductions were removed from the proposed climate treaty to be agreed at the Rio Earth Summit, before he would agree to attend. The targets were replaced, and with the younger Bill Clinton making climate an issue, Bush felt it sensible to go to the summit.
I think it’s an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I don’t think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don’t think we’ve got all the facts before we make decisions. I tell you one thing I’m not going to do is I’m not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world’s air. Like the Kyoto Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed.
In 2004 Democrat candidate John Kerry landed a blow on Bush at a debate:
The Clear Skies bill that he just talked about, it’s one of those Orwellian names you pull out of the sky… Here they’re leaving the skies and the environment behind. If they just left the Clean Air Act all alone the way it is today, no change, the air would be cleaner than it is if you pass the Clear Skies act. We’re going backwards.
Obama framed climate change as an energy independence issue, arguing that:
…we’ve got to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to energy independence, because this is probably going to be just as vital for our economy and the pain that people are feeling at the pump – and you know, winter’s coming and home heating oil – as it is our national security and the issue of climate change that’s so important.
Despite a petition with 160,000 signatures, the debate moderators for the 2012 debate did not put the issue on the agenda.
My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO₂ emissions is not the right course for us.
As Governor of Massachusetts he had “spent considerable time hammering out a sweeping climate change plan to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions”.
Why the silence?
I would argue that there are two reasons for the silence in the debates. One is simply down to the politicisation around the issue. As shown above, as recently as 2008 Republican candidates could admit that climate change was happening.
In 2012 only one contender, Jon Huntsman, was willing to do so, and he soon dropped out, with his views dramatically unpopular among Republican voters.
What happened? In two words: Tea Party. The emergence of the hyper-conservative Tea Party Republican faction was the culmination of a longer-term trend of what two American academics call “anti-reflexivity”.
The second reason is more gloomy, because it is more intractable. Those who have denied climate change for so very long will find it very costly – both politically and psychologically – to reverse their position and admit that they have been wrong. Climate change denial has become a cultural position, as academics like Andrew Hoffman have noted.
Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide accumulates, and the impacts pile up.
In the aftermath of the final presidential debate, Republican leaders and elected officials will no longer be able to shirk their responsibility to curb Donald Trump - who has become a clear and present danger not only to their party but to this country. He isn't dangerous because he soiled the GOP brand once more, because…
