NDN Blog

Everyone Will Lose if the UK Exits the EU — Except Donald Trump and his Soulmate, Vladimir Putin

 On June 23rd, Britons will hold a referendum on whether to stay or leave the European Union (EU), and surveys point to close vote. If Britain does exit the EU, or “Brexit,” the fallout could be serious and widespread. In February, G-20 finance ministers warned that Britain’s leaving the EU “could threaten global economic recovery.”

Brexit also would produce serious challenges for the United States, and possibly for Hillary Clinton. The EU represents much of what Donald Trump is campaigning against. So, a Brexit vote will give Trump an opening to lace his smack-downs of Hillary with talk about his so-called positions on trade, immigration and NATO.

If Britons say “No” to Europe, the first fallout will hit as when global investors pull back Europe and Britain, driving down the Euro against the dollar and, by 2017, driving up our trade imbalance with Britain and Europe. Britain has also been a big advocate of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and Brexit could well disrupt those talks.

Trump will call these developments proof that wide-ranging trade pacts don’t work and that Hillary doesn’t appreciate how they weaken countries. In fact, wide-ranging trade deals have been key factors in Europe’s recovery in the ‘60s and ‘70s, the developing world’s rapid modernization since the early ‘90s, and America’s leadership in information and Internet technologies. And if Brexit ends up strengthening the U.S. dollar, it will show that global investors still see the United States as the world’s strongest and most stable economy.

If Brexit happens, the U.K. also will have to restore its border controls with EU countries, including new limits on inflows of European workers to Britain. Those moves could also trigger new calls by right-wing European politicians to close EU borders to new immigrants from Turkey and Syria, which in turn could mean more refugees seeking asylum in the United States.

Trump will likely see these developments as proof that Europe is lining up behind his draconian plans to tighten borders and bar Muslims, and turning its back on Hillary. In fact, every major leader in Europe, including Britain, has condemned Trump’s anti-Muslim stance. Moreover, these new developments won’t change the EU’s distinctive policy of very light controls at the contiguous borders of EU countries — and Britain’s new approach would merely apply America’s current border regime to the U.K.’s borders with the EU.

A “No” vote by Britons also will cost the EU its largest military power, weakening the EU’s security and defense initiatives and its plans for European-wide defense cooperation. As a result, concerns will increase about Europe’s capacity to be an effective geostrategic partner to the United States, and about NATO’s future value.

Trump will likely call these developments proof that our 67-year old commitment to NATO, backed up by 67 years of investments, has gone bad, and that Hillary mismanaged U.S.-European relations. In fact, if Brexit pulls Britain out of the EU-wide defense policy and weakens EU security plans, those developments will enhance NATO’s role and importance, especially as a bulwark to Vladimir Putin’s ambitions to weaken European resolve and sow trouble between the United States and its most important allies.

The downside for Trump in using Brexit as evidence of his own canniness is that his criticisms line up pretty closely with Putin’s. They both say that the multilateral trade agreements of the last half-century have undermined the traditional economic arrangements they favor. They both also see Muslims as threats to the values and order they have each sworn to restore.

On NATO and the U.S.-European alliance, Trump’s views also align more closely with Putin than with U.S. strategy under every president since World War II. And why not — after all, Trump and Putin are equally committed to “Make America (or Russia) Great Again.”

This post was originally published on Dr. Shapiro's blog.

The Trump Bump Part II, Learning from Bernie and The CA Debate Should Proceed

Despite Spirited Challenges, Clinton Holding Her Ground A slew of new polls confirm the "Trump bump" we first discussed in last week’s column.  While the CBS/NYT poll had Clinton’s lead at 6, and NBC/WSJ at 3, the ABC/Washington Post poll had Trump ahead by 2. Clinton had an 8-10 point lead over Trump throughout March and April.  That advantage is probably down to 2-3 points now as Republican voters consolidate behind their new leader.

Importantly for Clinton we haven’t seen any decline in her substantial advantage over Bernie Sanders during this same period.  Barring an unforeseen event, she should wrap up the nomination in early June.  At that point expect Clinton to get a “bump” too, putting the race back into a 5-8 point margin for her, a far more comfortable place for Democrats eager to see this as a year of opportunity.

A 2016 caveat is, however, needed here and in the remainder of my columns – do not underestimate Donald Trump.  He is taking hold of his party more rapidly and effectively than many imagined, and while his campaign apparatus is dangerously behind a well constructed, hybrid Clinton/Obama machine, his masterful use of free and social media this cycle has been a 21st century political gamechanger.  Few Democrats believed the race would ever get this close, and that this will be a highly competitive and challenging race is slowly settling in across the country.

More Analysis Needed on Sanders’ Strong National Showing – One of the more remarkable bits of data coming from a week of new polls is how much better Sanders performs than Clinton in head to head polling against Trump.  In the most recent polls, Sanders is often above 50 against Trump, and has leads of 15, 4, 13, 13, 12, 10, 9 and 15.  In the last four polls tracking both Sanders and Clinton, Sanders’ lead against Trump is 12, 7, 7, and 11 points higher than Clinton’s.  During the course of this messy, contentious election cycle no candidate of either party has performed this well in general election polls for this long. It is no small achievement.

The conventional wisdom in town is that Sanders runs this strong because no one has ever roughed him with negative advertising, and that his “socialism” would tank him voters if they really knew what he was proposing.  Perhaps.  Whatever the case, it would be wise for Democrats to study and come to understand why this rumpled, unknown old lefty has run so strong in this election, particularly with unaffiliated voters (independents) and young people.  My guess is that like Trump and Cruz, his steadfast rejection of conventional politics (even attacking the DNC itself) has significant appeal to an electorate who felt let down by their leaders.  But the Party should both be giving Sanders more credit for what he has done, and begin working hard to learn from it for the all important fall elections.

Sanders, Clinton and the DNC – A new Politico piece contains the following passage:

"The perception that the DNC and other state parties have unfairly favored Hillary Clinton is going to make the reconciliation of Sanders and Clinton supporters nationally and in the states far harder," said Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, president of the NDN think tank. "The DNC should have tried much harder to address this perception early on, as it always had the potential to become a reason for Sanders partisans to question the legitimacy of Clinton's victory”

As readers of our work are aware, I’ve been warning for months that the DNC needed to do far more to address what were reasonable concerns about its impartiality in the race (remember the DNC Chair getting booed at a major New Hampshire event in September).  I don’t exactly know what can be done at this point, many months too late, to reestablish the DNC’s role as independent arbiter, and uniter of the spirited factions that have emerged this cycle.  But one obvious opportunity for the DNC Chair to publicly affirm her impartiality is to ensure that there is a 10th and final debate in California.  This debate was agreed to by the Sanders and Clinton camps, and became an “officially sanctioned” DNC debate.  For the DNC to walk away from the debate now, given that Sanders has signaled his desire to proceed, will only confirm the worst suspicions of Sanders partisans.

And why wouldn’t Democrats want to debate in California, the state that is arguably the American center-left’s greatest success story in recent years?  The state that is driving global innovation and entertainment? A state whose demography is a window into our future?  And a state with a long list of super talented next generation elected officials like Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Alex Padilla, Adam Schiff, Xavier Becerra and Eric Garcetti?  The DNC should be working aggressively now to get this debate scheduled, honoring their agreement, and giving the tens of millions of potential voters in June a chance to hear a fresh airing of the issues.

More on the 2016 Election – Be sure to review our deep dive on the 2016 map and the opportunities it offers Democrats; our tally of the Presidential primary debates audiences which finds the GOP far outperforming the Dems; the Democratic bench is stronger than it appears; Clinton should become a champion of political and electoral reform; thoughts on the "children of Reagan;" my in-depth interview with conservative author Matt Lewis on what the GOP can learn from a generation of reform and success on the center-left; my long form magazine piece on the descent of the GOP into a reactionary mess, anticipating the rise of Trump; Rob Shapiro on Trump's economic plan and the crackup of the GOP. 

"Monday Musings" is a new column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here. It also appears each week on the London-based progressive site, Left Foot Forward

Full disclosure: I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign. I am not, however, a consultant to, or paid by, any campaign or party committee.

Simon In The News on The 2016 Election: Print/Digital Media

Simon's analysis has been recently featured in several national and international media outlets. Be sure to check out full articles by clicking on the links. (Updated on Wednesday 5/18/16)

Media Appearance and Citations

"Sanders sticks it to the Democratic Party," Daniel Strauss, Politico, 5/17/16.

"Clinton faces conundrum as Trump shoots from the hip," Demetri Sevastopulo and Sam Fleming, Financial Times, 5/10/16.

"The GOP awakens to a Trump nightmare come true," Greg Sargent, The Washington Post, 5/4/16.

"Can Hill thrill after you've felt the Bern," Courtney Weaver and Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times, 4/28/16.

"Will young Sanders backers stay and steer the Democrats leftward," John Wildermuth and Joe Garofoli, San Francisco Chronicle, 4/28/18.

"Obama, who once stood as party outsider, now works to strengthen Democrats," Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post, 4/25/16.

"Supreme Court showdown to begin over Obama's moves to block deporation," David Nakamura, The Washington Post, 4/17/16.

"Here's one way the Clinton-Sanders brawl could end well," Greg Sargent, The Washington Post, 4/11/16.

"Bernie surges toward New York showdown," Gabriel Debenedetti, Politico, 4/6/16.

"For Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, a Debate Over More Debates Brews," Colleen McCain Nelson The Wall Street Journal, 3/25/16.

"Sander scrambles to keep pace with Clinton," Gabriel Debenedetti, Politico, 3/23/16.

"Why Sanders Trails Clinton Among Minority Voters," Noam Schieber, The New York Times, 3/21/16.

"The Great Divide: Clinton, Sanders, and the future of the Democratic Party," Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, March 21, 2016 Issue

"Why trade matters in the Rust Belt," Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC, 3/12/16.

"Trump's Path to Victory: Both Parties' Working-Class Whites," Nicholas Riccardi, Associated Press, 3/7/16.

"Democrats are taking the Trump threat very, very seriously. They're right," Greg Sargent, The Washington Post, 3/1/16.

"Pay close attention to what Chris Christie just said about Trump, Democrats," Greg Sargent, The Washington Post, 2/26/16.

"Obama's plan to visit Cuba is reminiscent of opening to Burma," David Nakamura, The Washington Post, 2/18/16.

"Hillary's debate desire: DNC rolls over now that she wants more Bernie bashing," Howard Kurtz, Fox News, 2/12/16.

"Bernie Sanders has already succeeded in a huge way (even if he loses)," Greg Sargent, The Washington Post, 2/11/16

"Democrats to Clinton: Fix your messaging," Gabriel Debenedetti, Politico, 2/10/16.

"Hillary Clinton's Recurring Struggle to Connect With Young Voters," Ronald Brownstein, The Atlantic, 2/4/16.

"Trade deal to be signed, but presidential politics could doom passage," Doug Palmer, Politico, 2/3/16.

"Clinton may have won Iowa, but she's got a lot of problems," Joe Garofoli, San Franscisco Chronicle, 2/2/16.

"America's Agitator: Donald Trump Is the World's Most Dangerous Man," Markus Feldenkirchen, Veit Medick, and Holger Stark, Der Spiegel, 2/1/16.

"MSNBC, NH newspaper to hold unsanctioned Dem debate," Ben Kamisar and Rebecca Savransky, The Hill, 1/26/16.

"Sanders battle with DNC overshadows Dem Debate," Ben Kamisar, The Hill, 12/19/15.

"The 'astounding' levels of campaign ads are just getting started," Nik DeCosta-Kipa, Boston.com, 11/17/15.

"So far, the Republican debates are way more popular than the Democratic debates," Alving Chang, Vox, 11/16/15.

"CBS Democratic debate draws lowest ratings," Hadas Gold, Politico, 11/15/15.

"Saturday nights with Hillary, Bernie and Martin," Hadas Gold, Politico, 11/13/15. 

"Democrats Eye More National Events As Anger Over Debate Schedule Grows," Sam Frizell, TIME, 10/16/15.

Is Trump Getting A Bump?

This column was originally published on the morning of Monday, May 16th, 2016.  It was updated on the afternoon of May 17th to include two new polls that comported with the piece's original argument.

While Donald Trump still faces enormous challenges in his campaign for the White House, the last few weeks have been very good ones for him.  His primary ended earlier than many expected, and well before the Democrats.  He rolled out a Vice Presidential search process and appointed Chris Christie to head up the building of his government.  He had a successful trip to Washington, sending a clear signal to all the party is in the process, slowly, of coming together behind him.  The media gave saturation, perhaps even unprecedented, coverage, to his every move and utterance.  In extraordinarily rapid fashion Trump has made the transition from brash outsider to confident leader of the Republican Party, again demonstrating that despite his political inexperience and sky high negatives, this guy is capable of playing the game at the highest level.

And perhaps most importantly to the Trumpian narrative, the success of his last few weeks has already begun to show up in the polls.  Using the Huffington Post Pollster aggregate as our guide, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Trump, which was 8-10 points throughout March and April, has shrunk to between 3 and 4 points. The six most recent polls have had Clinton’s lead at 4, 2, 4, 2, 3 and 2. The Ipsos/Reuters weekly tracking poll released over the weekend also caught this movement, finding Clinton’s margin dropping from 9 to 4 (45/36 to 41/37) over the past week.  The new NBC/Survey Monkey track finds similar movement, going from 49/44 to 48/45.  The Morning Consult track also reports similar numbers, going from 44/38 to 42/40.  Trump is clearly getting a bump now, and the data suggests that while some Republican leaders may be holding out, rank and file Republicans are rapidly consolidating behind their new leader.  

This movement could explain why Priorities USA, the Clinton SuperPAC, will start their general election campaign in the coming days, six weeks earlier expected. 

As I’ve written before, it should not surprise anyone that Trump had the potential to bring his party together despite his contentious primary.  On the big issues of the day – large tax cuts, climate denial, gutting Obamacare, interventionist foreign policy and restrictionist immigration policy – Trump is a very much in line with modern “conservative” Republicans.  Even on trade Trump is aligned with his party’s voters.  It is well known that Republican voters are more protectionist than the Ryan/Chamber wing of the GOP, and even more so than Democratic voters.  And it is also my own experience that Republican voters are far more invested in the “strong/weak leader” attributes of candidates than non-aligned voters and Democrats, something that is playing to Trump’s advantage.

The “strong leader” dimension of this race should be watched closely in the months ahead.  It is possible that this Presidential attribute is particularly important to Republicans reared on the powerful Presidency of Ronald Reagan, himself a former entertainer and unusually potent political showman.  For close to thirty years Republicans have been searching for a worthy successor, and have come up short again and again.  The Bushes were both failed Presidents, and leave little to celebrate about their time on the national stage.  A series of Congressional leaders – Hastert, Gingrich, Livingston, Lott – have seen their careers end in disgrace.  The children of Reagan who have begun to assert themselves in the GOP – Cruz, Rubio, Ryan, Walker – also showed they aren’t quite ready yet.  No national Republican today has a net positive approval rating.  It is not an exaggeration to say that since Reagan the Republicans have not produced one truly successful national Party leader.  This unrealized thirty year quest to find another one as great as Reagan may explain Trump’s success in ways other more traditional analyses cannot.  It also points to Kasich, who was a political ally of Reagan’s, as the Vice President who can help symbolically pass the torch from Ronald to the Donald. 

While this is only a snapshot in time, and we have a long campaign ahead of us, at this point it appears that Trump may be able to make a race of this thing after all.  But  as we discussed last week, failure to do so means a particularly devastating year for the Republican Party.   

Sanders Still In Weakened Position –The good news for Hillary Clinton this week is on the Democratic side.  Despite her losses in West Virginia and Indiana in recent weeks, Clinton’s national polling lead against Sanders has ballooned from low single digits a month ago to 13 today, and shows no sign of abating.  The same Reuters/Ipsos poll that showed her race against Trump tightening significantly also found her 15 point lead over Sanders unchanged from a weekly earlier.  Despite his two recent wins, Sanders has been unable to make up any public opinion ground against Clinton, suggesting that for many Democrats the primary has already ended.  While she might struggle this week in Oregon and Kentucky, her sizable national advantage is likely to prevent Sanders doing as well in the early June states, including California and New Jersey, to keep his candidacy going until the Convention.  And when Sanders is truly defeated, and stops campaigning, one would imagine that Clinton will get the same kind of bump Trump appears to be getting now, snapping the race back to a 6-8 point advantage for Clinton, a more comfortable margin, and one more in keeping with other measures of the national landscape.  

 

Trump’s Free Media Dominance Should Be A Worry for Clinton – I will dive into this a bit more in future columns, but want to say that Trump’s facility as a public communicator and his ability to completely dominate news coverage should start to become a true worry for team Clinton.  I have long rejected the theory that all this early exposure was somehow hurting Trump, and raised alarms last fall about how the anemic Democratic debate schedule was ceding far too much ground to Trump and the Republicans. While Democrats may have substantial advantages in how modern campaigns are run, we are about to learn the true value of celebrity and persistent media presence, traits that can be virally magnified in the social media age in ways not possible in previous media eras.  I don’t think Trump’s facility with modern media will be enough to close the institutional gap with the blended Clinton Obama campaign apparatus, but it is possible that the modeling of the digital nerds have not adequately war gamed a Kardashian like social media celebrity like Trump.   Underestimating Trump has proven to be a dangerous indulgence this Presidential cycle. 

More on the 2016 Election - Be sure to review our deep dive on the 2016 map and the opportunities it offers Democrats; our tally of the Presidential primary debates audiences which finds the GOP far outperforming the Dems; the Democratic bench is stronger than it appears; Clinton should become a champion of political and electoral reform; thoughts on the "children of Reagan;" my in-depth interview with conservative author Matt Lewis on what the GOP can learn from a generation of reform and success on the center-left; my long form magazine piece on the descent of the GOP into a reactionary mess, anticipating the rise of Trump; Rob Shapiro on Trump's economic plan and the crackup of the GOP. 

"Monday Musings" is a new column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here. It also appears each week on the London-based progressive site, Left Foot Forward

Full disclosure: I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign. I am not, however, a consultant to, or paid by, any campaign or party committee.

Why the Map Is So Dangerous for Republicans This Year

Last week, I surveyed the early landscape for the fall elections and found that it is a year of opportunity for Democrats.  This week we drill down on one piece of this story – 2016’s electoral map.

One of the great lessons of the Obama and Clinton Presidencies is that it is not enough just to win a Presidential election; to move their agenda from promise to law, a President must also create a governing coalition that remains in power over time.  For Hillary Clinton, the success of her Presidency may depend in part on whether she can also produce a Democratic majority in the Senate, and potentially the House, next year. And given that we’ve now seen the party in power suffer enormous losses in three consecutive mid-term elections, it suggests that the Democratic Party must not just be focused on winning the Presidency this year but winning as many Senate and House seats as possible to help prevent Clinton’s governing coalition from being just a two year aberration.

The good news for the Democrats is that Senate and House seats they have to win in 2016 have a remarkable and one time overlap with their Presidential targets.  Using the Cook Report rankings as a guide, here is a rough breakdown of how 2016 looks (Democrats need to pick up 7 Senate seats and 30 House seats to gain a majority):

Presidential/Senate targets (9) – CO, FL, IA, NH, MI, NV, OH, PA, WI

Presidential only (1) -– VA

Expanded Presidential/Senate targets (3) – AZ, GA, NC

Senate target, non Presidential (1) – IL

House targets in expanded Presidential/Senate battleground (20) – AZ (2), CO (1), FL (5), IL (1), IA (2), MI (2), NH (1), NV (2), PA (1), VA (2), WI (1)

House targets in CA/NY (10) – CA (4), NY (6)

Other House targets (7) – ME (1), MN (2), NE (1), NJ (1), TX (1), UT (1)

What this breakdown suggests by competing in just 14 states (AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, MI, NC, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI), Democrats will be able to hit all their Presidential and Senate targets and more than half of their House targets.  Adding California and New York will bring it to 30 of 37 House targets.  By historical standards, this is a remarkably concentrated and efficient map.  It means: a strong showing at the Presidential level will have disproportionate impact on Congressional races (coattails on steroids); it is an enormous opportunity for Democrats through their digitally enhanced coordinated campaigns to gain efficiencies that will allow more time/spending on expanding the map to states like AZ, GA and NC; the Clinton campaign’s success at raising high dollar monies and the Sanders success at low dollar fundraising suggests the Democrats will have enough money to contemplate a more expansive effort if the Clinton Sanders rapprochement is successful; and it means that the national campaign committee with the hardest job – the DCCC (House campaigns) – will be able to throw far more of its resources into those seven races outside the national footprint.

Given the innate advantage Democrats have at the electoral college level, and the debilitating early demographic and political challenges of the Trump experience (not sure it is a campaign yet), one could understand how the Clinton campaign and national party would play it safe, stay focused on the core 10 states needed to win the Presidency, and feel understandably that electing the first woman President was a big enough job for any Presidential campaign.  But the map and circumstances of this year suggest a more aggressive, and yes, perhaps more risky approach.

What would that look like exactly?  It means making it explicit that the national campaign map is now 16 not just 10 states (the 14 above plus portions of CA and NY).  It means running paid advertising and establishing coordinated campaigns in all 16 targeted states, including a national strategy to win over Millenials led by Sanders campaign veterans;  deploying the candidate/VP and Bidens, Obamas, Sanders and Bill Clinton to these states;  and it means letting the broader Democratic community know about this strategy to give them something incredibly powerful to fight for – ideological control of Washington – and not just something to fight against – Trump. 

I have no doubt that this “man on the moon” kind of approach would produce an enormous outpouring of financial support at all levels for the party, and broader citizen engagement/activism in these critical elections.  Its audaciousness and ambition itself will be a tonic to the risk adverse culture of Washington that so many Americans would have grown weary of, and will signal the nation that the Democratic Party and its new leader mean business.

At a practical level, the Democrats can pull it off.  A Clinton Sanders deal would mean sufficient resources. We have an unusually rich and popular surrogate pool that will need to be deployed in creative ways for Democrats to gain advantage from this structural opportunity.  The controversial DNC Clinton joint fundraising committee has meant the operational mechanisms for managing all this have been in place already for some time.  The Clinton campaign is being run by folks like Robbie Mook who come from the Party, understand how the Senate and House campaign committees work, making this kind of cooperative arrangement possible.  And the far more sophisticated data driven tactics of a post Obama Democratic Party means the upside of a truly coordinated campaign are far greater than in the past – much more can be gained with better technology and targeting.

Given the unusual map of 2016 and the Democratic Party’s enormous operational/technological advantages, this is a particularly bad year for the Republicans to offer a deeply unpopular, unsophisticated and just crappy candidate.  The question for the Democrats now is will they seize the opening they now have and turn what is likely to be a good year into a great one. 

Update - some analysts suggest both Indiana and Missouri could be in play as well, and could be part of ever more expanded map.  Will monitor this as the terrain becomes a bit more clear.  

A Year of Opportunity for Democrats - Looking Ahead to the Fall Elections

Last week we took a deep dive on what Clinton and Trump have to do to put their parties back together after contentious primaries.  This week I look further forward, and offer an early take on what the landscape might be for this fall's election in an admittedly unpredictable year: 

Current Polls (all data from the Huffington Post Pollster aggregate) -

Party – Dems lead in Party ID 36/28, and in favorability 46/47 (minus 1) to the GOP’s 31/60 (minus 29), a substantial margin. Congress, which is controlled by the GOP, has a historically low approval rating of 14 (14/72).

The President/Party Leaders – President Obama’s job approval is 49/47, and his overall approval is 48/46. Vice President Biden’s approval is 47/37, and Bernie Sander is 51/40. On the other hand, there are no major GOP political figures with net positive approval ratings – Ryan is 32/39, Kasich is 36/39 and McConnell is 17/43.

Trump vs. Clinton – In the latest Huff Po aggregate, Clinton leads by 7 in direct head to heads with Trump, 47/40. Her approval rating, while low, is far better than Trump’s, 41/55 (minus 14) to 33/62 (minus 29).

The Issue Landscape – There isn’t an obvious opening on domestic issues for the Republicans this cycle. The economy is vastly improved from where it was, and should continue to do well through the fall. Annual deficits are a 1/3 of what they were. Health inflation has slowed, and tens of millions have insurance who didn’t have it before. Energy prices are low, and the US is making real progress is transitioning to a better energy future. On immigration, one of Mr. Trump’s signature issues, the country is with the Democrats, and not him. The basket of issues around “security” remain the GOP’s one obvious opening, with Obama at 39/48 in his handling of foreign policy, and the Secretary having some lingering issues from her time as Secretary of State. Expect a tremendous level of engagement from the GOP on “security” issues this year.

The Map – As we covered in previous posts (here and here), the map is particularly advantageous for Democrats this year. The significant overlap among the states/districts Democrats need to win for the President, Senate and House both allow Democrats to maximize a Presidential state advantage, and use efficiencies gained through coordinated efforts to go on offense in states like Arizona, California, Georgia, New York and North Carolina, Additionally, Trump’s hard line immigration approach will make Democratic success in states with heavily Hispanic populations like Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Virginia and perhaps even North Carolina more likely.

Expanding the map to more states and voters is also important for Democrats to not only ensure that they win, but that they can govern effectively. Due to low turnout and only a small number of targeted Presidential states, only about one in three of eligible voters cast their ballot for President Obama in 2012. By expanding the map, Democrats could get that number up, creating more buy-in from the American people, or the “consent of the governed” our founders intended. This extra level of support could make become meaningful in a closely divided Congress next year.

The Choice of Vice President – For Donald Trump there seems to be one really good pick – John Kasich – and lots of less helpful ones. Kasich brings delegates to wrap up the nomination quickly, has as good a favorable rating as any GOPer in the country, has deep governing experience to complement Trump’s inexperience, hails from the region of the country where Trump must win, and is the Governor of the state where the GOP Convention is taking place. Kasich’s standing inside the Party will grow for “taking one for the team” by joining the ticket. I just don’t see how this doesn’t happen.

As for the Democrats, my money is still on Tim Kaine of Virginia. He is a former Party chair, governor and is deeply respected by people on both sides of the aisle. He hails from a swing state, speaks fluent Spanish, is Catholic (Rustbelt, Hispanics) and reinforces the “steady hand on the rudder” sensibility that will likely be a core Democratic offering this year. There are other good choices out there – Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Mark Warner, Elizabeth Warren, etc – but I think Kaine just feels like the right choice for this race at this time.

Looking Ahead – Six months out, signs point to this being a year of significant opportunity for the Democrats. The playing field leans Democratic right now, and the map is particularly advantageous to Democrats this year. The Party’s leaders are well liked, and it has a strong track record of success in each of the last two Presidencies and in winning national elections. Taken together, all of this gives the Democrats a formidable advantage against an unpopular GOP without well regarded leaders and very little to show for their time in power over the past generation.

While the basic structure of the race favors Secretary Clinton, Trump is only 7 points behind at this point. Clinton’s high negatives will give Trump an opportunity to make his case. His even higher negatives and lack of a true campaign at this stage of the race are enormous liabilities for him, ones that will make it very hard for him to turn this into a competitive race in the months ahead. But expect very aggressive attacks around the “security” theme (note 1st major policy speech was on foreign policy), and on her honesty and overall leadership capabilities. Also expect the GOP to come together rapidly around Trump in the months to come, as on may of the major issues – tax cuts, climate denial, Obamacare repeal, hard line immigration policies, interventionist/jingoistic foreign policy – is very much a mainstream Republican.  While Trump appears weak today, he has been over-performing expectations for almost a year now, and cannot be written off.

While perhaps playing defense on “security” issues and her own record, there is a real opportunity for the Secretary to go on offense as the next CEO of a party with well liked leaders and a strong track record of success now in two Presidencies. It would be wise for the Clinton campaign to spend the time through the July Convention leading a national effort to tell the story of Democratic governing success (jobs, deficit, health care, energy/climate, equal opportunity for all, political reform, safer world), establishing the basic contrast of D progress/R decline prior to rolling out her closing argument and shifting the focus to her candidacy at the Convention itself.  Helping the Democrats understand and own their own success will make every Democrat stronger up no matter where they are on the ticket.

It will also be remarkable to see a very popular set of Democratic leaders – Biden, Bill Clinton, both Obamas, Sanders, the VP – standing alongside and campaigning with Secretary Clinton in the months ahead. That image of a powerful team lead by an experienced leader (and first woman!) will not be easily answered by an unpopular, isolated Trump and a deeply unpopular Party without a single national leader with net positive favorability ratings. An unprecedented “Democratic Team” that includes two former Presidents could end up being an extraordinary advantage for her this fall.

To address her weakness with Millennials, Clinton would be wise to do two things: 1) showcase younger, compelling leaders like Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Joe Kennedy at the Convention, giving them outsized and very public roles, and showcasing them thru post-broadcast media and forums; 2) adopt a far reaching plan to renew our democracy and reform our politics, along the lines of something I published last week. Whatever the Clinton plan is for bringing along the Sanders world, particularly Millennials, it must be an aggressive and serious effort, and should begin right away.

Conclusion – All signs point to it being a year of opportunity for Democrats.  Though Trump should not be underestimated, the hole he and his party have dug for themselves is very deep.  It remains to seen if they can make the fall election competitive. 

More on the 2016 Election - Be sure to review our deep dive on the 2016 map and the opportunities it offers Democrats; our tally of the Presidential primary debates audiences which finds the GOP far outperforming the Dems; the Democratic bench is stronger than it appears; Clinton should become a champion of political and electoral reform; thoughts on the "children of Reagan;" my in-depth interview with conservative author Matt Lewis on what the GOP can learn from a generation of reform and success on the center-left; my long form magazine piece on the descent of the GOP into a reactionary mess, anticipating the rise of Trump; Rob Shapiro on Trump's economic plan and the crackup of the GOP. 

"Monday Musings" is a new column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here. It also appears each week on the London-based progressive site, Left Foot Forward

Full disclosure: I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign. I am not, however, a consultant to, or paid by, any campaign or party committee.

Renewing Our Democracy, Restoring Consent

This note was originally sent as email to members of the NDN community on May 12th. 

....This week I published an op-ed on the US News website that lays out a three part plan for modernizing and improving how our democracy works in America.  I hope you will take a few moments to read it in the coming days.  It is one of the more important pieces I’ve written in recent years. 

I draw particular attention to this piece because I’ve become convinced that getting more people to meaningful participate in the process of choosing their leaders, restoring the “consent of the governed” imagined by our Founding Fathers, is an essential and necessary step in restoring faith in our institutions and moving our nation successfully into the 21st century. 

I and NDN have dabbled in these issues over the years.  I was one of the first non-Oregon investors in the Oregon vote by mail experiment in mid-1990s, one that has helped created a voting system with among the highest citizen participation in the nation.  I was an early champion of the use of the Internet in US politics as a way of lowering the barrier of entry for every day people into the political system, even putting the first American political party on line (the Democrats) in 1993.  I was an architect of the plan that added a southern and southwestern state to the early DNC nominating calendar, allowing voters of colors to play a much greater role in choosing the Democrat’s nominee.  And recently, NDN successfully advocated for an improved DNC debate schedule, allowing tens of millions of people to become better informed in their choice for President in 2016.

I also sit on the board of the Tisch College for Civic Life at Tufts University, arguably the leading academic institution in America today looking at citizen engagement and healthy societies.  I am honored that I will be teaching a class there this fall on American politics that will be allow me to spend a bit more time looking at these issues.    

I write all this to the NDN community today as a way of saying that I and our team will be committing far more time and energy to the basket of issues around political and electoral reform, and restoring “consent.”  As I look ahead over the next few years, I have become convinced that the distance many Americans feel from Washington must be addressed head on or progress on so many other issues that we care about will be disappointingly elusive.  

And there is urgent international context to this discussion as well.  If America is to remain steadfast in our commitment to advancing democracy abroad, our own democracy must be an exemplar, not a laggard or even an embarrassment (5 hour lines to vote!).  Acknowledging that even we in the world’s oldest democracy don’t always get things right, and can make improvements, will be an inspiration to other nations and advocates looking to modernize and improve their own political systems. 

Thanks for all that you do for us here at NDN and the many other organizations and leaders our community supports each and every day.

Best,

Simon 

SF Chronicle: Simon on Democrats and the Sanders Legacy

In their recent piece, "Will young Sanders backers stay and steer Democrats leftward," John Wildermuth and Joe Garofoli interviewed Simon for his take on Sanders' performance during the 2016 Democratic Primary election. Simon's is quoted at length in the article.

In the first passage, Simon points out the opportunity the Democratic Party now has to engage young voters and build its base:

That surge of young, enthusiastic and progressive support for a longtime independent congressman and senator who wasn’t even registered as a Democrat until last year should be a loud wake-up call for the party, said Simon Rosenberg, founder of NDN, a center-left think tank.

“This presents Democrats with an enormous opportunity to make their case” to many young people who are more identified with Sanders and his progressive ideals than with any particular party, said Rosenberg, a veteran of former President Bill Clinton’s campaigns. “The question of whether these folks become Democrats is up to the Democratic Party itself.”

In the second passage, Simon describes the advent of the generational turn in party leadership:

Like it or not, though, change is coming for the Democratic Party and party leaders have to deal with it, Rosenberg said.

“Parties always change when another generation takes power,” he said. “The era of Clinton, (Rep. Nancy) Pelosi and (Nevada Sen.) Harry Reid is changing to the era of Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, (Hawaii Rep.) Tulsi Gabbard and (New Jersey Sen.) Cory Booker.”

The Democrats are in the midst of a transition from a party of the 20th century to a party of the 21st century, Rosenberg said, and Sanders’ supporters have to be an important part of that change.

These new voters “see a failed set of elites running the country and have the sense that the country is not well-led,” he added. Democratic leaders “must realize these aren’t wild-eyed critiques, not the critiques of bomb-throwers. ... They must have humility and realize they have a lot to learn.”

Unpublished
n/a

US News: Simon on Restoring the Consent of the Governed

Simon has a new op-ed in US News today on the urgent task of restoring the "consent of the governed" to American politics. The opening graphs:

"It is easy to forget perhaps how radical an idea America's democracy was in the 18th century. Oligarchical elites controlled governments and people, and authority was derived from the "divine right of kings." Our Founding Fathers had to replace that authority with a new one, writing in the Declaration of Independence that governments would derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Through the lens of today, this simple phrase is profound and powerful. The clear implication is that our Founders believed that it was only through the process of achieving consent could a government be just; and that governments without consent would struggle to be just (or effective, popular, etc). In a year in which there has been so much talk of corruption and rigged political systems, this idea – whether part of the problem we face today in America is that the system is no longer capable of conveying consent – is something I think worth exploring." 

The full article is available on the US News website.

Syndicate content