For this week's Monday Musings on 2016 column some initial thoughts on Saturday's contests in South Carolina and Nevada:
The Republicans – After strong wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Trump appears to be in control of the GOP race now. Yes, lots could happen, and Rubio continues to gain strength as the mainstream alternative, but Trump has emerged from this huge GOP scrum in better shape than anyone else. Compare his vote totals and shares at this point to the last two GOP nominees:
McCain '08: 251,840 (31.5% of total)
Romney '12: 294,616 (30.5% of total)
Trump '16: 385,684 (31.9% of total)
Yes, Trump has 50% more votes at this point than McCain did in 2008.
We have another GOP debate this Thursday, which will be one of the most intense yet. Everyone will be gunning for the Donald, and with fewer candidates on the stage more time will be spent on him. It will be one of his most important tests to date. Watch for how his opponents play his attacks on George W. Bush for not keeping us safe, an issue that I assume with continue to resonate and disrupt the GOP conversation even after Jeb's hasty departure from the race.
As for the departure of Jeb!, it was always a mystery to me how he thought he could overcome the legacy of his father and brother. Both in their own ways were failed Presidents, and certainly many Republicans saw them as unworthy successors to Ronald Reagan. Despite raising and spending extraordinary sums of money, the Bush dynasty failed to re-assert control over the GOP, for now (there is another – George P. Bush is rising in Texas and is worth watching). The epic Bush crash in some ways makes Hillary’s early success even that much more impressive, while being a reminder that unlike Bush, Clinton has been part of two successful Presidencies.
The Democrats – Saturday was a big big day in Clinton land. The remarkable Sanders insurgency was halted, but importantly, not ended. After three early contests this long shot and eccentric campaign has earned the same number of pledged delegates as Clinton (51); received at least 47% of the vote in all three states which are also important battlegrounds in the general election; has matured in a serious national political effort capable of matching Clinton in organization and money and outperforming them in media and creativity. So while Bernie clearly suffered a blow on Saturday, he isn’t done and will go on to the 20 states voting in early March. But his task is much harder now, and he has little room for error in the days ahead.
Starting with Hillary's New Hampshire concession speech and picking up over the past week, you could sense that the Clinton campaign had finally begun to rise to the Sanders challenge. After months of unmemorable media, the campaign has produced a series of powerful ads that present their candidate in a far more favorable light (my favorite). Clinton’s own television speeches and appearances have gotten far sharper and better. The campaign is aggressively deploying its many and varied surrogates, allowing them to be in more than one place at a time while reminding voters of the lack of validation and support Bernie has been able to garner (I helped develop and oversee the surrogate program in the 1992 campaign and know how historically important this has been to Clinton land). And clearly a lot went right on the ground in Nevada on Saturday (also see this terrific piece about Senator Harry Reid’s role in Clinton’s victory).
What comes next? Clearly Hillary is in the driver’s seat now. She is likely to win South Carolina and head into the 11 contests on Tuesday, March 1st with a lot of momentum and rising confidence. Bernie will have to perform well that day to stay competitive. Importantly, he has a shot in at least 5 of the 11 – Colorado, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont. Look for the Clinton campaign to ride their advantage with African-American voters in the other 6 states and concentrate on knocking Bernie out in CO, MA, MN and OK. If she runs the table on March 1st the Democratic nomination could come to a rather rapid resolution.
Not a Fan of the “Single Issue Candidate” Line – One area where I think the Clinton campaign is making a big mistake is in their labeling of Bernie a “single issue” candidate. First, it just isn’t true, and attacks that are not grounded in reality don’t usually work that well over time. Second, it is offensive to both Sanders and his passionate followers, whom Clinton will need by her side if she wins. Bernie is much more than about breaking up the big banks. And that brings me to the third – it suggests that the Clinton campaign still doesn’t really understand what is propelling his candidacy. To me what is driving Bernie, and to some degree Trump, Cruz and Rubio too, is that they represent a break from the current political establishment. There is enormous disquiet in the American people now, and Hillary simply must begin to tap into this sentiment in some way. The answer to this is in part someone who can “get things done,” but it is also someone who is willing to bring fundament change to a system everyone views as terribly broken. I’ve been writing about this for months; why Clinton hasn’t become more of a forceful advocate of the very thoughtful political reform agenda she has already proposed remains another one of the big political mysteries of 2016 for me.
Turnout/Enthusiasm – I will have more on this in a day or so, but Republicans continue to significantly outperform Democrats in television audiences for debates and townhalls and in turnout. While this gap is not determinative, it is illustrative. Republicans are far more engaged and enthusiastic about this election right now than Democrats. And given that in two of the past three elections Democrats have had enthusiasm and turnout challenges, these numbers continue to be a cause of concern.
But they are not only a concern for the fate of the Democratic Party in th fall. If HRC does indeed wrap up the nomination by March 1st (an early winner was goal of current Primary schedule), then more than three quarters of Democrats, including ones in very large states like California, Florida and New York, will be able to cast a meaningful vote for their nominee. As we've written before, the current political system is both making it harder for people to participate, and offering them very few chances to cast a meaningful vote for Federal offices. We believe this dynamic is contributing to the rising alientation from the political system many feel today, and more perniciously, begs the question whether our system can still convey the consent of the governed as our founders had hoped.
"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 U.K. progressive site, Left Foot Forward.
Full disclosure: I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign.
In the last few weeks I've become aware of a new proposal from the FCC which would radically change the way television operates in the United States. While we don’t yet know the specifics of the proposal, my initial thought is "why would anyone mess around with the business model of television now?" As a former television producer and writer for prime time American shows, I can tell you first hand that what America is experiencing today is truly a golden age of television. There is so much more programming, so much more innovation, so much more diversity, so many new voices, so many new distribution outlets and platforms than there ever has been. And a lot of the TV we watch is also really really good. When I watch TV today, even programs on tertiary networks, I am often stunned at the quality of the writing, the production values, the stars themselves. As someone who grew up in the business, it is clear that TV has never been better. Why do something now that could crash all this creativity, innovation and success?
Perhaps proponents of this proposal who come from the tech side don’t really understand how profound the changes and improvements in television have been; how tens of thousands of highly creative and capable Americans are pushing an old medium to unprecedented places. Perhaps they see TV as just another form of bits and bytes. But the magic of TV these days is anything but bits and bytes – it is something extraordinary, and like most creative surges, potentially fragile and ephemeral. Even small tweaks in the current, evolving business model could cause major disruptions in this enormous, complex, and innovative ecosystem.
Additionally, and we will learn more about this next week when the FCC’s proposal comes out, the FCC seems intent on regulating the hardware (set top boxes) that is how many (but not all) people receive their programming. Given how rapidly television is moving to the Internet, to mobile devices, to services like Netflix and Amazon, this seems at first blush like an antiquated approach to a distribution network rapidly (and thankfully) leaving the set top box era behind. This is an area that deserves much attention in the days ahead, as it would tragic if the FCC were to issue a tech mandate that is already out of date and behind an explosive tech curve.
So I am anxious to learn more about the FCC’s proposal next week. But the bar for the FCC to act has to be very high here. Television has become a true crown jewel in America’s world leading creative and entertainment industry. The distribution model of television and video in general is in the midst of a very profound tech driven change that needs time to play out. Messing with all this now requires a very powerful rationale and an unassailable plan. What the FCC has floated so far seems to fall far short of this high bar, but I will wait to learn more next week before passing final judgement.
The US's foremost academic center for the study of youth engagement in politics, Tufts University's CIRCLE, has put out a must read study looking at where this all important vote is likely to most influence the vote in 2016.
"Parties and other political groups often overlook the votes and energy of young people even where youth can have a decisive influence on the outcome of the race. CIRCLE is providing data-driven insights about the states and congressional districts where youth are posied to have a disproportionately high electoral impact in 2016."
The top ten states where the youth vote will impact the 2016 presidential election are: Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada.
On to Nevada and South Carolina - The race changed quite a bit last week with Sanders and Trump scoring significant victories in New Hampshire. The unorthodox nature of the race was captured in two stats: “extremist” Trump won the vote of moderate Republicans, and “extremist” Sanders beat a Clinton in NH (a state long favorable to them) among independents by 3 to 1. Sanders and Trump continue to defy easy ideological classification, and the traditional “left-center-right” way of understanding US politics, long overstated and exaggerated, is proving to be particularly unhelpful this cycle. Discontent with the elites and the DC political class continue to be a significant – if not paramount – sentiment driving 2016 on both sides.
On the Democratic side much comes down to the Nevada Caucus this Saturday. If Sanders prevails in such a diverse state, the Dem contest could go on for some time. If Clinton prevails, given her advantage in South Carolina, it could be the beginning of the end of the spirited Sanders insurgency. There is, however, a growing body of evidence (here, here and here) that despite the conventional wisdom, Sanders now has a larger, better funded and deeper campaign, something that could become truly significant in the early March states. It sure appears now that the Clinton campaign simply did not contemplate or plan for a competitive Sanders effort, raising over $80m for the DNC and their SuperPAC over the last few months that would not be accessed until after the nomination was settled. That so much effort was expended raising this much money not designed for use in the primary itself will be a decision long debated; but it leaves the Clinton campaign with the very unpleasant reality that they may be out-spent and out-organized over the critical month ahead (though some of Bernie's possible advantage will be mitigated by free media advantage of Clinton's powerful surrogates, including her husband and daughter, allowing them to be in more than one place a time).
The good news for Hillary is that she is a vastly improved candidate. In my mind she bested a tired Sanders in the debate last Thursday and in general is putting in strong performances when it really matters now. She has also found what may be her first successful and durable attack on Sanders - that she will be far more effective at building on the Obama legacy (i will have more on both the pros and cons of this argument in a later post). I am less convinced the "single issue" attack will work, as Sanders has been anything but a single issue candidate in the election so far. There is a difference from having a powerful overarching narrative (rigged economy, corrupt political system) and being a single issue candidate.
Given that over 50 percent of eligible voters will vote in the two weeks from March 1st through March 15th momentum and organizational strength really matters now. If Clinton wins both Nevada and South Carolina, she will a big advantage heading into our March Madness. If they split, given Bernie’s apparent organizational advantage, expect this period to be very competitive and potentially dangerous for the Clinton candidacy.
On the Republican side, it is a different story. Trump has once again become a powerful and capable frontrunner, and he question of whether any of the next four – Bush, Cruz, Kasich and Rubio – can emerge to go one on one is the big one on the GOP side. As long as the anti-Trump vote remains split, he remains the front runner. The sad truth for Republicans is that just isn’t clear that any of their remaining four challengers is strong or capable enough to defeat Trump. And all of these candidates are going to start having money problems soon, and may not even make it to the all important March window. The unprecedented compression of the primary season into this extraordinary March run benefits candidates like Trump and Clinton with strong name ID and money. Sanders appears to be the only other one with enough of both to seriously challenge after Nevada and South Carolina.
What’s Next – On Thursday, the Democrats have one of their television “townhalls,” this one with MSNBC and Telemundo. On Saturday, the Democrats caucus in Nevada and the Republicans have a traditional primary in South Carolina. Another big week ahead!
GOP Silliness on the Supreme Court – The Republican argument on the next Supreme Court justice boils down to “we don’t want to do it.” Isn’t any more to it than that. And of course that just is not good enough. Yes this is a big new development in 2016. More on this next week.
GOP’s debates continue to outperform the Dems – We have updated our report on Presidential primary debate audiences to include the latest debates. Summary: GOP on track to 5x their 2008 debate totals, Dems will just barely top theirs. So far the R debates have generated 143 viewers, the D debates 55m. It is a large and consequential difference.
"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. Full disclosure: I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the DC Democratic primary, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign.
In Iowa, 15.7 percent of all registered voters caucused for either the Republican or Democratic Party. In New Hampshire, according to projections by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner, approximately 62.3 percent of those registered to vote cast ballots in the New Hampshire Primary.
It should be noted that Iowa, with over 3.1 million people, is a more populous state than New Hampshire, where approximately 1.3 million people live.
Trump, Sanders lead the polls – Both Sanders and Trump seem to be in good shape in New Hampshire as of today. But as Iowa showed us last week, anything is possible in this volatile race. Iowa could have given us two nominees if Trump and Clinton had decisive victories. But it didn’t, and as I wrote last week, the entire election changed. What surprise will NH produce? What order will 2-4 be on the GOP side? We will find out tomorrow night. But here are a few things we know:
- Rubio had a campaign altering meltdown on Saturday, and so far his reaction to it seems to be digging the hole deeper.
- Cruz isn’t wearing well. His exchange with Carson on Saturday, and his incredible lie about what actually happened was a bad sign for his campaign. He is still very much in this thing but there are all sorts of warning signs emerging.
- That Rubio and Cruz have had a rough week means that the Donald has had a good one.
- Sanders outraised Clinton last month by a third ($20 to $15m). Remarkably, Sanders will likely be able to match Clinton’s money as the map gets bigger. No one could have imagined that even a few weeks ago.
No predictions, but my sense is that Trump may re-emerge as the frontrunner this week; Clinton will close and make NH tight but not win; Sanders will close everywhere else, including the next Dem contest, Nevada.
What’s next for the Democrats? The two Democrats will debate this Thursday on PBS/CNN, and then have Nevada on 2/20, South Carolina on 2/27, and on 3/1 AL, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA. It is going to get big, fast.
Still can’t understand why Clinton is embracing more of a reform agenda – I’ve covered this issue in the last few weekly memos but it remains the great mystery of the race to me. Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Rubio have all made challenging the broken system central to their campaigns. The resistance by Clinton to do so, given that she has a very strong set of campaign and voting rights proposals, seems at this point – at best – tone deaf. Something to watch in the days ahead, and be sure to review Ari Berman's smart piece "Hillary Clinton's Bold Plan for Voting Rights."
Bad Week for Dems and debates – The much and appropriately maligned DNC approach to the debates is perhaps best understood by the audiences garnered by the recent New Hampshire debates. The first DNC NH debate was the on the Saturday before Christmas. The second was hastily thrown together by candidates needing greater exposure than the inadequate DNC schedule had given them. The first debate, on ABC, received 8m viewers. The second, on MSNBC in weekday primetime, received 4.5m viewers. The GOP NH debate which aired this past Saturday also on ABC received 13.2m viewers. The GOP weekend debate outperformed the weeknight DNC debate three fold this week; the GOP ABC debate on a far better Saturday night had a 65% higher audience than the Dem ABC debate; and the single GOP NH debate this week had more viewers than both Dem NH debates combined.
The inferior and flawed debate DNC approach has let the Democrats down this cycle, giving their candidates and their arguments far less exposure than what Republicans have received. So while we are pleased that the two campaigns decided to add four more debates to the original six, it is tragic that these campaigns, in the middle of the most intense period of the election so far, had to take so much time to improve what was a terribly inadequate approach crafted by the DNC.
For more on the debate debate see our memo which compares the audiences received by both parties in the 2008 and 2016 cycles.
Enthusiasm/Interest – Watch tomorrow night for turn out numbers. As we wrote last week, in Iowa Democrats experienced a 40% drop from their 2008 Caucus vote, while the GOP saw a 50% increase. We know GOP debates are on average getting more than 60% more viewership than the Dems. Are numbers like this predictive of the outcome in the fall? Of course not. But they are instructive as where the two parties stand today; and I want to go on the record now saying I believe this is a problem for the Democrats in 2016, exacerbated by a horribly misguided approach to their debates.
"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. Full disclosure: I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the DC Democratic primary, and have given the maximum contribution to her campaign.
In last Thursday’s GOP debate, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie avoided any mention of their common proposal to “reform entitlements” by raising the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 70. Their silence was the right decision: Their proposal demonstrates their lack of understanding about the demographics of older Americans, especially the dramatic disparities in their life expectancy associated with education and race.
Recent research on life expectancy indicates that their proposed change would effectively nullify Social Security for millions of Americans and sharply limit benefits for many millions more. While many people in their 30s and 40s today can look forward to living into their 80s, the average life expectancy for the majority of Americans who hold no college degree hovers closer to 70, or the average life expectancy for all Americans in 1950.
A recent study in Health Affairs explored the average life expectancy of Americans who were age 25 in 2008, or 33 years-old today. It reports that the average expected life span of 33-year-old high school educated men is now 73.2 years among whites and 69.3 years among black—n compared to 81.7 years for whites and 78.2 years for blacks for their college-educated counterparts. American women on average live longer than American men, but their differences based on race and education also are dramatic. The average life expectancy of high-school educated women age 33 today is 79 years for whites and 75.4 years for blacks, compared to 84.7 years for 33-year old whites and 81.6 years for blacks of that age with college degrees. The projected life spans of Americans now in their 30s without a high school diploma are lowest of all, ranging from 68.2 years (black men) and 68.6 years (white men) to 74.2 years (black and white women). Surprisingly, the data suggest that Hispanics have the longest life expectancies of any group, even though they also have the lowest average years of education; but those anomalous results may reflect sampling problems.
(The Brookings Institution just issued a more detailed version of my analysis, with tables, which you can find here.)
Using Census data on the distribution by education of people age 30 to 39 in 2014, we further know that 20,292,000 thirty-somethings or 54.9 percent of all Americans in their 30s fall in educational groups with much lower life expectancies. Some 45.4 percent of whites in their 30s or 10,613,000 Americans have a high school degree or less, and their average life expectancy is 9.4 years less than whites in their 30s with a B.A. or associates degree. Similarly, 64.4 percent of blacks in their 30s or 3,436,000 Americans have a high school degree or less; their life expectancy is 8.6 years less than blacks in their 30s with a B.A. or associates degree. Finally, 75.6 percent of Hispanics in their 30s or 6,243,000 Americans have a high school degree or less, and their life expectancy is 5.0 years less than Hispanics in their 30s with a B.A. or associates degree.
Across all communities – white, black, Hispanic — improvements in secondary education to prepare everyone for higher education, and measures to ensure full economic access to higher education, would add years to the lives of many millions of Americans.
These findings have special significance for Social Security, because the number of years Americans can claim its benefits depends on how long they live. Americans in their 30s today will be able to retire with full benefits at age 67; but depending on their education and race, they should expect to collect those benefits, on average, for a period ranging from 1.2 years to 19.3 years. The most pressing cases involve white men, black men, and black women without college degrees. Among Americans age 33 today, white and black men without high school diplomas and black, male high school graduates can expect to live long enough, on average, to claim Social Security for less than three years. Similarly, white and black women without high school diplomas and black, female high school graduates, on average, can expect to collect their monthly benefits for less than eight years. By contrast, white college-educated men and women age 33 today can expect to receive Social Security for between 14.7 and 17.7 years, respectively; and 33-year old black men and women with college degrees, on average, will claim benefits for 11.2 to 14.6 years, respectively.
These findings dictate that proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age should be rejected as a matter of basic fairness. As noted earlier, GOP hopefuls Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all have called for raising the retirement age to 70 years. Among Americans in their 30s today, their proposal would mean that black men without a college degree and white men without a high school diploma, on average, would not live long enough to collect any retirement benefits. White and black women without high school diplomas, and in their 30s today, along with 30-something white men with a high school diploma and black women who graduated high school, on average, would live long enough to receive Social Security for just 3.2 to 5.4 years. All told, the GOP proposals would mean that after working for 35 years or more, 25.2 percent of white Americans now in their 30s and 64.4 percent of blacks of similar age would be able to claim Social Security benefits for about five years or less. And that alone should disqualify any proponent of a higher retirement age from the presidency.
This post was originally published on Dr. Shapiro's blog.
On Wednesday, February 3rd, this version was revised, and corrected, from the original. See note below.
Those pesky voters did their thing last night and created a brand new Presidential race in both parties. Cruz, Rubio and Sanders all outperformed expectations, and head into New Hampshire with renewed vigor. Trump disappointed, though one would assume he will do better in a primary state where organization matters a bit less (if he doesn’t collapse). Hillary Clinton retains a huge structural advantage in the Democratic race, but received a very real warning that she will need to continue to improve, grow and respond to current circumstances or face a far more serious challenge than her team has seemed prepared for (see this recent Greg Sargent piece in the Washington Post for more on this).
What happens next? As I wrote last week, we all have to more humility in our projections about this race, as it is volatile and uncertain. Conventional wisdom has Trump and Sanders winning New Hampshire next week, but we have a week of campaigning, town halls, debates and other things that could once again toss the CW of 2016 on its head. Remember that in both 1992 and 2008 New Hampshire was very very good to the Clintons, and could be again. I have no real thoughts about the race post New Hampshire at this point though my assumption is that Sanders will close the gap with Clinton nationally and in most states, and raise enough money to allow him to compete with Clinton head to head for as the election moves beyond the four state early window.
A few additional observations on the Tuesday after Iowa:
The Democratic debates – Last week the Clinton campaign advocated for a debate to be added this week in New Hampshire, the Sanders campaign agreed but only if they and the DNC could agree to three more debates. The issue of a new debate schedule remains unresolved as of this morning, and of course all debates and forums for the Democrats going forward will only be Clinton and Sanders now. For the DNC this negotiation is an opportunity to erase the impression of favoritism they have clearly showed in the debate schedule to this point; or reinforce it. The outcome of the talks could have a huge impact on 2016.
Enthusiasm – Democrats should remain worried about enthusiasm. As we’ve documented elsewhere, the GOP debates are getting far larger audiences than the Democrats. Compared to 2008, the Rs debates are generating 5 times the viewership while the Dem debates are only up twofold. Similarly, the 2016 Iowa caucuses saw a 50% increase in turnout for the Rs from 2008 (120,000 to 180,000), while the Democratic turnout number was off by 40% from 2008 (240,000 to 171,000). While these numbers are not predictive of outcomes this fall, and the two primaries are of course very different, given the enthusiasm problem Democrats have experienced in 2010 and 2014 any evidence of an enthusiasm gap in 2016 has to be worrisome to party leaders.
Young People – According to the entrance polls last night Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by 70 points with voters under 30, 84-14.. 70 points!. Will be important to watch if this gap begins to show up with voters of color in the coming states, mitigating Clinton’s much noted early advantage with nonwhites (particularly in higher turnout primary states). I will have more on issue later, as it is emerging as perhaps the most significant demographic story to watch on the Democratic side.
Political Reform/Changing the Clinton Narrative – I made the case last week that Clinton’s refusal to take up the political reform mantle has been a bit inexplicable. She can run as both an experienced hand who can make the system work better, and argue that those who know the system best are most able to change it. But the agenda she offers on reform has to be real, meaningful, biting and persuasive. My piece from last week offers some ideas on what that agenda could be but it has to start with a commitment to close the Clinton Foundation and have family members forgo all speaking fees while she is President.
David Axelrod had a great related insight last night on CNN. Paraprhasing, he said that when you run on "experience" the campaign is all about you, not about the country, the voters, an agenda. Bernie has made it all about us, the future, the country. As a Clinton 1992 guy I remember, deeply, about how we made our entire campaign about his argument, about the future, about the US. Perhaps it is time for Clinton to invert her campaign, and make her pitch about us and her compelling agenda for the future, and not so much about her and her complicated family.
Note 2/3- In the original version of this memo, I mistakenly attributed the difference between Sanders and Clinton in the Iowa Caucus to coin tosses in six precincts. While there were coin tosses, I misunderstood what type of delegate they were awarding. As this good piece from Media Matters explains, those six delegates awarded by the coin tosses due to the arcane system used in Iowa would have not have been enough to wipe away Hillary Clinton's 3.77 delegate lead as of yesterday afternoon. So I stand corrected, and have removed the incorrect passage from the current draft of the memo.
This column takes the place of my regular "Monday Musings" column which looks at the national political landscape and is published most Mondays here on the NDN site. You can find previous columns here.
Full disclosure: I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the DC Democratic primary, and given the maximum contribution to her campaign.
A very smart Greg Sargent piece today in the Washington Post about lessons Democrats need to learn from Bernie Sander's remarkable campaign contains this passage:
"Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg has suggested that Clinton, who has rolled out robust campaign finance and voting reform proposals, needs to get back to highlighting that agenda while linking it to an argument that only someone with her deep knowledge of the system can reform it in fundamental and profound ways from the inside."
You can read the piece Greg is refering to here. The key graph:
Clinton and Political Reform – One of the more puzzling elements of the 2016 campaign is why Hillary Clinton hasn’t run more aggressively on her very ambitious and thoughtful political reform agenda. I think there is an obvious way to turn her experience and understanding of the dark side of politics into a broader argument that it takes an insider to fix the system from the inside. She can not only run on her articulated plans, but could commit to suspending the foundation if she were to become the nominee and closing it if elected, leading a government wide effort to modernize the treatment of data and email in a new cyber age, tying Congressional pay to getting budgets done on time (no budget no pay), creating a minimum number of days Congress must be in session each cycle, etc. The reforms she could offer to change the system have to be biting, real, and bring about real change. While I think she is smart to hug Obama and offer continuity as a matter of core strategy, this is one area she should offer a sharper break with him. Trump, Sanders and Cruz all are offering some version of a radical overhaul of the system. She needs to join this chorus in her own way, recognizing that part of her argument – first women President – is unlikely to be sufficient.