California

Clinton Steps Up, Trump Stumbles and the Democrats and Post Cold War America

2016 Overview – The core dynamic of the race that we discussed last Monday hasn't changed this week – Hillary Clinton and the Democrats maintain a modest but meaningful advantage heading into the next phase of the campaign. Trump’s recent bump in the polls made the race a bit closer, but has receded now, leaving Clinton the clear front runner today.

As for the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton will clinch the nomination on Tuesday night. Bringing Sanders and his many supporters (he is still over 40% in the Democratic Primary and at 49% in national polls against Trump) into the fold will be one of many important tests for Secretary Clinton over the next few months as she makes the transition from candidate to nominee. Last week saw a very important moment in that transition, as Clinton, in San Diego, delivered what may have been her most powerful speech – and inspiring public performance - of the campaign. It felt very much like her formal pivot to the general election, and a very effective effort to begin to seize control of an election she has a very good chance of winning.

Trump, on the other hand, has struggled mightily in the post-nomination phase of his campaign. His now infamous interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper revealed Trump at his very worst – petty, mean-spirited, conspiratorial, shockingly comfortable with racist slurs against well regarded federal officials. Just as Clinton has started to feel “bigger,” and more of the national leader she aspires to be, Trump appeared much “smaller” over the past week, overwhelmed by the enormity of the job he is so clearly unsuited for. It was not an encouraging week for the Republican Party.

The Democrats and Post Cold War America – What is very much in the air these days, on both sides of the Atlantic, is a discussion about whether the system the West built after WWII is failing. Our friends in Britain are debating Brexit, and throughout Europe the established political order is struggling to stay relevant. At home Donald Trump has intimated at a very different kind of global order, one with America playing a far less significant role. And of course we have a candidate associated with socialism, itself a different set of arrangements, still leading in the national polls. We are, whether we understand it or not, in the midst of a great – and perhaps welcome and needed – debate about our path forward as modern, liberal democracies in a time of enormous global change.

Last week, in two muscular speeches (here and here), President Obama made his case for why the Western project, at least here in the United States, is both working and has left America in a far better position that many Americans understand. In his Air Force Academy speech he argued:

We are blessed to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous era in human history. Now, that sounds controversial until you survey the history of the world. It’s hard to see, with all the violence and suffering in the world, and what’s reported on the news every day. But if you step back for a moment -- think about last week, when I was in Hiroshima to remember all who were lost in a World War that killed some 60 million people -- not 60,000, 60 million.

For decades, there have been no wars between major powers. Wars between nations are increasingly rare. More people live in democracies. More than 1 billion people have been lifted from extreme poverty. From the Americas to Africa to Southeast Asia, there’s a new generation of young people, connected by technology and ready to make their mark. I’ve met them. They look up to America. They aspire to be our partner. That’s the progress and the hope that we have to build on.

And as for America itself he said:

And here’s a fact: The United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth and a force for good. (Applause.) We have big challenges in our country -- in our politics, our economy, our society. Those are challenges we have to address. But look around. We have the world’s strongest economy. Our scientists, our researchers, our entrepreneurs are global leaders in innovation. Our colleges and universities attract the best talent from around the world. Our values -- freedom, equality, opportunity -- those values inspire people everywhere, including immigrants who come here, ready to work, and integrate and help renew our country.

Our standing in the world is higher. I see it in my travels from Havana to Berlin to Ho Chi Minh City -- where huge crowds of Vietnamese lined the streets, some waving American flags.So make no mistake, the United States is better positioned to lead in the 21st century than any other nation.

One of the great questions of this big debate about the Western project is whether the system is failing, or are the defenders of liberalism and the system failing it?  Domestically, I will point to one aspect of this debate, and the question of who will be better for the American economy in coming years, the Democrats or the Republicans. In two recent polls which asked the question, Donald Trump led Hillary Clinton by double digits. In each poll the economy is seen as the most important issue for the next President to tackle. So this is no small thing.

Given this, Democrats should be asking themselves some tough questions.  Given the performance of the economy over the past generation, how can Trump be leading? President Clintons and Obama have brought jobs, growth, soaring stock markets, and far lower annual deficits. The two Bush Presidencies brought recession, job loss, higher structural deficits, a domestic housing and financial collapse and declining wages and incomes. As Dr. Rob Shapiro has been pointing out, even on wages, it now appears that the pernicious dynamic we began to see early in the 2nd Bush era has come to an end. Since 2013 wages have been rising for most Americans. Lots of new data indicate that Americans understand things are getting better; and President Obama this past week hit the highest approval rating of his 2nd term. So, the American people sense that indeed things are improving, are better – and of course they are.

Perhaps it is the newest and most inconvenient truth in American politics today, but what is just incontrovertible fact is that over the past generation when Democrats have been in power things have gotten better, and when Republicans have been in power, things have gotten worse. The system here in America isn’t failing. One of the two political parties has understood the great changes the Cold War’s end brought to the world, and has governed effectively against these opportunities and challenges. The other political party, however, has struggled to understand the new forces of the 21st century, and has failed when in power. And there is perhaps no greater manifestation of this party wide failure to understand the modern world and plan against it than the current GOP nominee, Donald Trump (see my long form magazine article from a few years back on the descent of the GOP into a reactionary mess). 

To me the reason that this inconvenient truth is not better understood is that Democrats as a whole have not adequately understood, or owned, the success of their two recent Presidents. One got the feeling last week, in Obama’s two speeches and in Clinton’s too, that the Clintons and the Obamas are about to do everything they can to change this. The Presidential wing of the Democratic Party, which has been far more successful than its Congressional counterpart over the past generation, is going to have its say this summer and fall. And it is long past time for their Congressional allies to join them in making the case for the success of liberal governance to the American people. The fate of the election, and perhaps even the Western project itself, may depend upon it.

Update - Another sign of the GOP's failure to wrap its arms around modernity is what is about to happen in the California Senate race.  In their open primary system, every candidate runs against everyone else, with the top two vote getters regardless of party moving on to the fall election.  According to the latest poll, the two Democrats are at 37 and 19, and the three Rs are at 8, 5 and 5.   Putting the results together, Ds are at 56 and the Rs are at 18 - this in the state that produced the GOP's most successful politicians of the past 60 years, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.   There is no state in America which has embraced the modern world with as much gusto as California, and there is perhaps no state in America where the Republican Party is closer to losing major party status.  

Taking Meg Whitman Seriously

The highly regarded Field Poll has a new poll out this morning which takes an indepth look at the California Governor's race.  It is a must read for any student of politics, particularly the complicated politics of California.

I have come to believe that this race may be the single most important race in the entire country.  If Whitman wins she would be an instant leader to be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 2012, or she may even decide to run for President.  If she is on the ticket in 2012 she could help bring a disgruntled national business community firmly into the GOP camp, and potentially put California into play in 2012, a move that could cost the Democrats tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. 

This poll makes it clear that Whitman has a very real shot of winning this race, not just because of her appeal, argument and money but in how she is building her coalition, a strategy that could be replicated by the national GOP with the right ticket in 2012.  In this poll she is, amazingly, winning among young people (the largest demographic age group in the poll) and trails with Latinos - 20 percent of the statewide electorate - by only 50-39.  She has at that magic 40 percent mark today with Latinos, a percentage often cited by Republican strategists as the threshold number GOPers must win if they are to win national and California elections. In contrast, Democrats received 70% of the Latino vote in the 2006 midterms, and President Obama received 67 percent in 2008.  They received similar numbers with young people in each of the last two elections.

For Jerry Brown getting his numbers up to the recent Democratic performance with these two huge parts of the CA electorate - 67 percent plus in each of the last 2 national elections - appears to be now, perhaps, the single most important strategic goal of his campaign in the months ahead.

If Whitman wins this race in the way she is attempting to win it she will become a powerful leader of a modern, 21st century GOP.  Her victory would signal  that the national GOP has begun to figure out to pick the lock of the very 21st century Obama electoral majority, built to a great degree on the enthusiastic support of young people and Hispanics. 

As I wrote a few weeks ago Whitman would be a perfect VP candidate for Jeb Bush if he were to run and win the GOP nomination.  This ticket, led by the governor and former governor of California and Florida, two of the largest states in the nation, could credible attack the Obama electoral map, whose firewall today is the heavily Latin parts of the country (CA-SW-FL). With the new found weakness of the President in the rustbelt and with VA and NC likely to be unwinnable in 2012, the President and his team will have to mount a very fierce defense of this Latin belt.  If they hold it they can hold the Presidency.  And for the GOP, it is looking like they could actually field a ticket in 2012 which could - emphasize could - win enough of the midwest and the Latin belt to mount a very credible challenge to the President next time around. 

So, it is time now to take Meg Whitman, and her modern campaign, seriously.

Update Thursday AM - Whitman has gone up with billboards in Spanish announcing her opposition to SB1070.  Further evidence of a smart and modern campaign.  And the always sharp Christina Bellantoni of TPM also takes a look at the innovative Whitman effort in CA this morning.

California "Always" Liberal? Ross Douthat Must Be Dreaming

In yesterday's New York Times, conservative columnist Ross Douthat accuses President Obama of "pushing a blue-state agenda during a recession that’s exposed some of the blue-state model’s weaknesses, and some of the red-state model’s strengths."

Asking readers to consider California, which he places against the stellar conservative governance of Texas, Douthat notes:

California, always liberalism's favorite laboratory, was passing global-warming legislation, pouring billions into stem-cell research, and seemed to be negotiating its way toward universal health care.

(his link points to a Time article about Arnold Schwarzenegger's work in this area, who, last I checked, has an R and a 28 percent in state approval rating next to his name)

While California is undoubtedly a national leader in trends of all stripes, understanding the legacy of California governance as being "liberalism's favorite laboratory," couldn't be more wrong. The reasons for California's epic struggles lie, not in the "always liberalism" that Douthat sees, but instead in the Ronald Reagan conservative tax revolt coming home to roost.

In contrast to, say, California's efforts on energy policy, which research shows have created prosperity in the state over the last generation, the tax revolt defining Proposition 13 destroyed a top notch public schools system and, more recently, rendered the state bankrupt. The 1978 ballot initiative, which capped property taxes and mandated a 2/3 rule for the state legislature to pass a budget, has created a structural shortfall in the state budget and a political inability for legislators to craft a solution -- but Douthat doesn't see fit to mention it.

Conservatives love to argue that California has incredibly high tax rates, and, in the case of some specific taxes, that's true. But that's only because Proposition 13 so drastically lowered property taxes as to necessitate raising taxes to compensate for lost revenue. As Ezra Klein, in discussing Robert Samuelson's op-ed on California (which, like Douthat's piece, conspicuously fails to mention Prop 13), notes this morning:

Total state and local taxes take up 11.73 percent of the average Californian's income. The national average is 11.23 percent. And it's been like that for many years:

CAtax

Far from being "always" liberal, California's electoral votes were supposed to be safe for Reagan's Republicans, giving them a generational lock on the White House. Here again, California was ahead of the nation, this time in discovering that conservatives couldn't govern and is now as deep blue as the Pacific Ocean.

Now that the nation has learned its lesson from eight years of red-state governance under Douthat's vaunted Texas leadership, America followed California, this time for the better, in overwhelmingly rejecting failed conservative governance. Blue-staters (a lot of folks these days) have only had six months on the job after eight years of botched "red-state" governance. It will be a lot longer than that if conservatives like Douthat can't even figure out where they went wrong; Proposition 13 was certainly one of the first places.

Update: Ezra Klein just blogged on Douthat's column as well. He does a nice job taking down the argument that Texas is a good model for anything and the broader red-blue frame that Douthat tries to use.

Unemployment in California Climbs to 10.5 Percent In February

Even California, the land of high-tech and innovation, cannot weather this storm. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that unemployment rose to 10.5 percent in February.

The state unemployment rate jumped to 10.5 percent in February, a level not seen since 1983. All told, the recent economic slide has left 1.95 million Californians scrambling for work.

Friday's report from the Employment Development Department charts a sharp rise from January's 10.1 percent rate and brings the state closer to its modern peak of 11 percent, which occurred in late 1982 and early 1983.

The U.S. unemployment rate for February was 8.1 percent. During the Great Depression, unemployment got as high as 25 percent.

January numbers showed California at 10.1 percent unemployment, one of four states with that number higher than 10 percent. (Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Carolina are the others.) Growth in the 1990s was driven, in large part, by the California led tech boom, and California has generally been on the leading edge of the nation's economic activity. High unemployment in heavy manufacturing driven states was how people understood this recession, but these numbers from California mean something different is afoot.

Of course, California's housing market has been hit especially hard, and then there's this

Obama, Clinton tied going into Feb. 5th?

Adding to the incredible drama of this already remarkable race, there is a growing body of evidence that Clinton and Obama may go into Super Tuesday tied, or close to it. The Rasmussen and Gallup tracks are now showing significant movement to Obama. The Rasmussen link above also has polls in Connecticut and California with the candidates now within margin of error. At this point, however, it is still too early to gauge the impact of the Edwards withdrawal - something that could influence the apparent Obama momentum one way or the other.

Two further points:

- Obama leads among white voters in the Rasmussem CA poll. I think this poll, and the other polls in this round should put to bed the idea that Obama cannot win white votes. He won plenty of white votes in both IA and NH, and outperformed all predictions of his white vote share in SC.

- Hispanics may end up being the single most important part of the Clinton strategy on Feb 5th. In the new Gallup poll she is holding on to a 28 point national lead, and in the Rasmussen CA poll she also leads by 27 points. As we wrote yesterday this battle for Hispanics - and whether Obama can cut her enormous margin down in the final few days - may be the most consequential battle of all the important battles coming up on Feb 5th.

Am I crazy to be referencing polls given what has happened this year? Maybe...

Syndicate content