Hillary Clinton in California: Important to unify Democratic Party


HILLARY CLINTON: I’m going to wait and see
where we all are after tomorrow. I am, as you rightly point out, on the path to not
only have a very big lead in the popular vote, but a very significant lead in the pledged
delegates. And so, we’ll take stock about where we are tomorrow. I’m going to do everything
I can to unify the Democratic party and I certainly am going to be reaching out to Sen.
Sanders and hope he will join me in that. Because we’ve got to be unified going into
the convention and coming out of the convention to take on Donald Trump and to repudiate the
kind of campaign he is running and make it very clear that’s not the kind of president
or commander-in-chief that we want.

Are two parties enough? — with Michael Barone (1995) | THINK TANK


Ben Wattenberg: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. America has a unique two-party political system. Does it still work? In 1996, beyond the Republican and Democratic
nominees, we may be seeing one more or two more or even three more serious presidential
candidates who say it’s time for something new. Joining us to discuss the matter are Michael
Barone, author of “Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan,” coauthor
of “The Almanac of American Politics,” and senior writer at US News & World Report;
Ronald Walters, chairman of the political science department at Howard University and
author of “Black Presidential Politics in America: A Strategic Approach,” and deputy
campaign manager for issues in Jesse Jackson’s 1984 campaign; Michael Beschloss, author of
“The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960–1963”; and Michael Vlahos, senior
fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation. The topic before this house: Are two parties
enough? This week on “Think Tank.” America is the only advanced democracy with
a straight two-party system. Advocates say it helps unite a vast continental
nation. But more often than you might think, third
candidates and sometimes even fourth candidates have had a major influence on American presidential
elections. The presidential election of 1860 had four
major candidates. Abraham Lincoln was elected, becoming the
first Republican president. In 1912, former Republican President Theodore
Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate, finished second, and split the Republican
vote. This allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to capture
the White House. In 1968, presidential candidate Richard Nixon
nearly lost the election to Democrat Hubert Humphrey because the governor from Alabama,
George Wallace, took almost 14 percent of the vote, most of which would have gone to
Nixon. George Wallace [from videotape]: Got some
folks out here who know a lot of four-letter words. But there are two four-letter words they don’t
know: w-o-r-k and s-o-a-p. You don’t know those two four-letter words,
I’ll tell you that much. Ben Wattenberg: And in 1992, billionaire Ross
Perot ran a chaotic but remarkably successful third-party campaign. To the surprise of many experts, Perot received
almost a fifth of the vote. Perot may well run again in 1996, and he may
not be alone. There is intense speculation that retired
General Colin Powell could run as an independent. The Reverend Jesse Jackson has publicly discussed
bolting the Democratic Party to run on an independent ticket. What their candidacies would mean for the
Republicans or for the Democrats or for America is anyone’s guess. We are going to talk in a moment about the
current situation, but let’s start first with a lesson in theory. What is the political theory behind our unique
two-party American system? Michael Barone, and then let’s go around the group. Michael Barone: Well, I think the argument
for third parties is that the two major parties — we’ve got two of the three longest-running
major parties in democratic societies in the world — have their own fixed kind of character
and personality. They don’t exhaust all political possibilities
of what people may want, so you should have room for something else. The real argument, I think, against the third
parties is that our electoral system works powerfully against third parties, the electoral
and for the presidency and the single-member district in Congress. And as a practical matter, third parties have
not proved lasting. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Michael Beschloss. Michael Beschloss: Third parties tend to address
issues that oftentimes the major two parties do not address because they have to be these
great umbrella majorities, and oftentimes they’ve gotten candidates to focus. In 1992, if Ross Perot had not been so tough
on reducing the deficit, I think Bill Clinton and George Bush would not have tried to outbid
him. At the same time, during a period in which
this country is getting more fragmented than ever, in a way the two umbrella parties seem
a lot more welcome because there are very few unifying factors in this society. Ben Wattenberg: Michael Vlahos. Michael Vlahos: Third parties are important
in American history because the national third party as opposed to a regional third party
emerges in a time of a conflict of visions over the American idea. Ben Wattenberg: Of visions? Michael Vlahos: Yeah, a conflict that’s
deep-rooted, that’s powerful. We have them in the Civil War, right before
the Civil War, 1896, 1930s. The third party is a transitional device for
Americans to play out this conflict of visions. What happens often is that it serves as a
way of getting things defined so that it comes to terms in a critical election, where one
of these visions predominates. And at that point, once you have one vision
triumph, those who are opposed to that vision still or who believe differently tend to take
the opposition side, and you go back to two parties again. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Ron Walters. Ronald Walters: Very complex. I think the philosophical cement which has
held the two-party system together really is fraying at the edges, and largely because,
I think, when you look at the grand coalitions which have held these two parties together,
the social interests behind them are coming unstuck. And I think that you look for the answers
to that not in the political system, but in the social system. And I think when we look at the fact that
there is far less unity about the great ideas of this time, I think it’s natural that
you will see that reflected in the political system. Ben Wattenberg: Why is it that America alone
of the modern industrial democracies has a straight two-party system, and I guess everywhere
else, there are more fragmented parties? Michael Barone: Well, one quick answer is
the electoral college. I mean, the fact is, you either carry all
of the state’s electoral votes or none, and the first one in there does. Ben Wattenberg: So there’s a constitutional
root to it. Michael Barone: It doesn’t help out very
much if you’re running a strong third; you get zero in the electoral college. If you’re running even second, you get zero
in the electoral college in most states. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but if you run third
party, you can get a state’s electoral votes with only 34 percent of the vote. Michael Barone: But in fact what’s happened
is that the residual loyalties typically to the two major parties — about which people
at different points in our history have had really passionate attachments to — tend
to make it hard. I mean, we saw Ross Perot, in 1992, was running
first out of three in the polls in the spring. If he hadn’t withdrawn from the race, perhaps
he would have been a — that is not impossible, but it’s a hard threshold to meet. Michael Vlahos: But there is a cultural reason
for having two parties, and that is that, unlike the other cultures of Europe and Japan,
America isn’t the same kind of structured class society where you have a dominant upper
class that organizes society and that class can structure its political system in ways
where it’s less central to how you define your identity. Whereas here, in some ways the political system
is the way in which we structure a sense of elite leadership in society and ratify it
in ways that work for us. The ratification of authority in European
states does not depend upon their electoral system as much. Ronald Walters: Well, I was going to say something
just I think the opposite of that — [laughter] — because I think that there is a sense,
really, of class in a lot of this. Michael Vlahos: Well, I’m not saying there
isn’t a sense of class, but it isn’t as structured as — Ronald Walters: All right, well, let me define
it my way. I think that one of the ways in which the
political parties, especially in the 20th century, was predominantly out of the question
of class. When you look at the way the Democratic Party
has tended to mirror the development of industrial society, you can see then the root of that
party system and the way in which it served blue-collar interests. By the same token, in the 20th century, you
look at the emergence of the Republican Party and the way in which it tended to serve the
interests of those who own capital. And I think that that — what’s happened
I think in the post–World War II period is that that division has broken down as we
moved toward a service economy. Two guys live in the suburbs. One works for IBM, the other for AT&T. They’re a Democrat and a Republican. They wonder, what’s the difference between
us anymore? Michael Beschloss: I think another thing,
if I might come in, is that especially on the Democratic side, in recent years you see
something of a lack of political courage of the kind that you used to see in the 19th
century. By that I mean that Democrats in recent years
who would like to be old liberal Democrats with the kind of view about activist, perhaps
central government that was the case that was very popular in the 1930s, now people
say Americans have turned away from that. But we still want to win, so we’ll try to
fuzz that up and paper over the division in the Democratic Party. And the result of that has been that every
presidential candidate in the Democratic Party for about the last 10 to 15 years has been
a hostage of this effort to paper over that conflict. And what you might see in 1996 is Bill Clinton
trying to be both old and new Democrat, and you might see, if Jesse Jackson runs, Jackson
forcing Clinton to choose one or the other, and essentially a third party doing what it’s
done through most of our history. Ben Wattenberg: You don’t really think that
President Clinton would try to have two faces on an issue, do you? Michael Barone: Well, I think he — I’m
not sure he’d want to limit himself to that. [Laughter.] No, he’s an adaptive, and in a sense he’s
almost a prototype of the nature and the character of the Democratic Party. Because through its long history, going back
to the 1830s, the Democratic Party has typically been a collection of out-groups, of people
who sense or are sensed by others to be somehow not quite fully American or hyphenated American
or a little different. It was the Irish as it started in the 1830s,
Southerners as opposed to Northerners, factory workers and union members in the 1930s, black
Americans, particularly after the New Deal and the civil rights revolution. And at its best, the Democratic Party becomes
sort of the quintessential majority institution when it gathers enough of these groups together
and can keep them together. But it’s hard keeping all these groups together. Michael Vlahos: Well, it worked in the industrial
period, but the problem is, we’re entering into a different era in terms of how our economy
is structured. And you add to that the fact that the establishments
of both the two parties don’t speak to the people anymore. They’re elitist establishments. And in fact, the cleavages in both parties
illustrate the fact that you have the old lines of ideological separation and party
allegiance shifting like this. So you now see libertarian Democrats, old,
you know, hippies from the ’60s, making common alliance with the Gingrich types who
want to have the same kind of libertarian approach that fits the economic changes — Michael Beschloss: Certain Republicans? Michael Vlahos: Well, in fact, you know, the
old class lines — we’re still wearing the kind of attire that fits the old-line
elites. In fact, that’s really breaking down and
that’s traditionally — Ben Wattenberg: You can take your tie off. Michael Vlahos: I might loosen it a little. No, but traditionally, you have this breaking
down of elites when you have an economic revolution. Ronald Walters: Let me throw something else
in because we’ve talking about interests, and that is, I think technology has helped
this process because it’s given groups the ability to project their interests into the
political system without regard to the overarching structures of the party. Political scientists, for example, we talk
a lot about why the party has gone, you know, to hell. Well, the fact is that the party used to be
the main instrument of political socialization, the main instrument of political information
as a part of that. But today somebody can turn on their television
set and get more political information or use some other means, internet, whatever have
you. So that ability of groups to get together
and to project their interests, represent their interests is another reason why I think
you’re fragmenting the political party system at the base. Ben Wattenberg: Let’s move now to the current
situation. Because when Ross Perot ran last time, in
1992, he made the case — and I thought it was a pretty interesting case — wouldn’t
it be nice to have a nonpartisan president, who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican,
who could take the best from each, who didn’t get elected because this block or that block
or this special interest had given him money. And then he could sit there and be sort of
the nonpartisan guy who got under the hood and fixed things. Is that — and now, how does that play out
in — now let’s turn to 1995. Ronald Walters: The state law won’t allow
it right now. When you look at the way in which the Congress
has produced and the way in which people have to run through a gauntlet of state laws, which
are really structured to favor the two-party system — Ben Wattenberg: In congressional elections. Ronald Walters: — in congressional elections
— right now I don’t see any room in state law for a totally nonpartisan result. And I think that’s got to be the problem. But I will say this: that as far as the presidential
level is concerned, since the time of John Anderson, I think that what’s happened in
states is that it’s become easier and easier for serious third-party candidates to gain
ballot access. And the technicalities around ballot access
really have stymied a lot of great third-party efforts. Michael Barone: How late is it a candidate
can get in the race, Ron, and get ballot access in all the states, do you think? Ronald Walters: I think about now. Ben Wattenberg: Perot didn’t start till
the spring of the election year. Ronald Walters: Well, in many states, you
have petition requirements, and those petition requirements means that you have to get 30,
40, 50,000-some, 100,000, some crazy number of petitions — Michael Vlahos: That’s right, and a lot
of them are thrown out. Ronald Walters: That’s right. And you have to get them validated, and they
have to be ready for some of the elections that are occurring this year in order to use
that ballot access for next year. Ben Wattenberg: Is Jesse Jackson, in your
judgment, going to do that? Ronald Walters: I plead the Fifth on that
question. Michael Barone: Has he taken some of the beginning
steps in that, or have others done that for — Ronald Walters: No. He’s talked about it seriously, but I would
say this. When you look at a combination of groups that
have already run, from the Peace and Freedom Party to Ron Daniels and many others, that
have already created ballot access in many states, I don’t think he would have to start
over, you know, new. He could use, in fact, some of the lines that
have already been created. Michael Vlahos: The only time that third — national
third parties are really important and can be really important — and this isn’t just
a function of local laws — is when one of the two major parties begin to break up. And we have serious enough divisions in both
parties, especially the Democrat Party, where you could begin to see that. If you have a situation where people feel
so unattached to a party, the prospect of a third party that two or three years ago
might have just been based around a charismatic figure, like Ross Perot, now becomes something
that they begin to focus on. That’s what you had in the 1850s. But that reflects deep divisions. Ben Wattenberg: Is the Democratic Party breaking
up? Anybody? Michael Beschloss: I guess I see it very differently. Because what third parties have done, certainly
in this century, you see something like the split that Ben mentioned, in 1912 between
Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft in the Republican Party. That was mended again. Same thing in 1948. There was a suggestion that the Democratic
Party would break up because you had splinters on the left and right. They came back again. In 1968, George Wallace took a number of people
out. I think what it tends to do is not so much
always cause a party to break up, although that certainly did happen in the 19th century
— in the middle of the 19th century — but what it does is it gets a party to focus. What I would suggest in this time, one problem
in the Democratic Party at the presidential level during the last two decades has been
lack of focus. Do the Democrats believe in the idea of strong,
activist government, or is this something that they’re walking away from? In 1980, that was papered over; very much
the same thing now. So if you had a party, such as a Jesse Jackson
party, splintering from the Democrats, what it could cause is a much more focused Democratic
Party in the future. Michael Vlahos: If I could just rephrase that. I mean, the point is that the development
of the Know Nothings followed the collapse of the Whigs. What I’m saying is if one of the two major
parties that’s been hallowed and around a long time loses a lot of its adherents and
becomes a kind of rump party, like the Whigs did, then you see that as a consequence of
a divide in which the issue has left its former place. It’s left the party; it’s gone somewhere
else. Michael Barone: It’s kind of a hard drill,
though, to do this. One of the things we see in presidential races
recently has been that you do better, as Ross Perot showed, if you’re some kind of a celebrity. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, well, all right. Let me ask you a question, speaking of celebrity. Suppose you had General Colin Powell — Michael Barone: The man with a — Ben Wattenberg: That’s right — former
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, running on a ticket, on a visionary ticket as an independent
with traditional values as his major theme. How would he do? Michael Barone: Well, I think there’s a
real potential for that candidacy. You know, you can see it in the polls, and
you can see it depending on what General Powell does. In a way, a presidency of this sort is almost
what the founders envisaged. They did not think the president would be
a partisan figure. The person they had in mind for the first
holder of that office, George Washington, tried very much to hold himself above party,
although that became difficult in his administration. Michael Vlahos: The problem is that so many
people in the elite are looking to Powell to kind of paper over and bring together a
cleavage in America that you can’t get away from. Michael Barone: Your example of the Whigs
earlier — the Whig Party disappeared in part because it refused to confront — Michael Vlahos: Right, right, absolutely. Michael Barone: — or take a stand on the
moral issue of the day: slavery and extension of slavery. They said, “Hey, we’re neutral on this.” And everybody else had strong feelings about
it. They said, “We don’t need a party that’s
neutral on this. We’ll go with the Democrats who like slavery,
or we’ll go with the Republicans that sort of dislike it.” Michael Vlahos: That’s beginning to happen
now. Ronald Walters: This is the David Dinkins
solution. Paper it over, hope that he can bring everybody
together. Ben Wattenberg: David Dinkins is the mayor
of New York, the former mayor of New York. Ronald Walters: Former mayor of New York City. And it didn’t work. Michael Vlahos: I agree with you on that. Ben Wattenberg: Who spoke about the great
mosaic — Ronald Walters: That’s right, and it isn’t
working. Michael Vlahos: This isn’t the same as Eisenhower,
either. This isn’t the same as Eisenhower because
that was America — Ronald Walters: But let me say something about
Colin Powell. I just wanted to just go just a little step
further on Colin Powell. Because I think that the minute he opens his
mouth and begins to articulate his vision, the white population, which now in the polls
shows him way up there, is going to splinter. So he’s going to carry, I think, some of
the white population. But I think the real damage is going to be
done in the Democratic Party. He probably will carry as much as one-third
of people who consider themselves Democrats, and that’s going to be the death knell of
the Democratic — Ben Wattenberg: Will he capture a majority
of the black vote if he ran? Ronald Walters: No. About a third — about a third of the black
vote, people who now call themselves Democrats. Ben Wattenberg: Michael Beschloss, you tell
me, how would Colin Powell do? Michael Beschloss: I think he might win the
election. I think it would be a very problematical presidency. We have been talking about third parties and
third-party candidates. If he runs, he would not particularly be the
candidate of a party. Ronald Walters: Right, right, that’s true. Michael Beschloss: He would be an independent
movement, no base in Congress. If Colin Powell were elected on the basis
of personality and his very considerable prestige, what could he really claim this election as
a mandate for? One advantage of having a Republican or Democratic
label at this point in time is that, at the very least, a Bill Clinton can say in 1992,
whether genuinely or not, “My election represents a mandate for a point of view on a number
of issues, and I’m going to use that in dealing with Congress and the American people.” Very hard for Colin Powell to do that if he
runs a campaign that is as much above ideology as we’re talking about. Ronald Walters: I disagree because mandates
are not given. Politicians create mandates out of victory. Look at Lowell Weicker in Connecticut. Here’s a guy who ran on something called
the Connecticut Party and won, and right away claimed a mandate for doing what? Michael Vlahos: He’s hated by so many Connecticutans. Ronald Walters: Raising taxes. Michael Barone: Raising taxes. Well, that’s — he’d said he’d consider
raising taxes before, but — Ronald Walters: That’s right, that’s it. Michael Vlahos: There’s a problem with Colin
Powell, though. He’d grab the basically uncommitted middle,
and hanging out there on both ends would be the firebrands who want to change America
in two different directions. And so the problem would just be postponed. Michael Barone: You know, we have a sort of
polarized politics in this country, in part because we’ve got a polarized people. I mean like, you know, the force in the Republican
Party with the most elan and energy right now seems to be the religious right. In the Democratic Party, I would say it’s
the feminist left has been — Michael Beschloss: Right. Michael Barone: — certainly in 1992 was
the party with energy and enthusiasm and so forth. Neither one of those groups is sure that General
Powell shares their basic vision. And, you know, any — when a person comes
forward as he does, who is widely admired but whose views aren’t known, any enunciation
of his views is going to subtract some people from supporting him who otherwise would have
done so. In a cultural split, it will be interesting. I mean, you’re basically writing a platform
for him, Ben, that I don’t know if General Powell agrees with or not. Ben Wattenberg: I’m writing a book about
that platform for a number of candidates, you know, one book for four or five candidates
of different parties. Michael Vlahos: You know, one of the problems
I see here — and this highlights my belief that this is a period of a conflict of visions
— is that the two opposing visions are hell-bent on demonizing each other, the kind of demonizing
you haven’t seen since the 1850s, when the Republicans talked about the slave power and
characterized the Southerners as evil and the Southerners turned around and did the
same thing. Ben Wattenberg: We are running out of time. Let’s go around once more this way, and
let me ask one simple question to which I would like again a short answer, although
it’s hard to do. In terms of the next presidential election,
given the fact that none of us know the future, so stipulated, will there be a third-party
candidate or a fourth-party candidate or a third independent candidate for it? And how is this thing going to play out, stipulated
that none of us really knows? Ron Walters, Howard University. Ronald Walters: I think that there will be
a third-party candidate. It’s hard now to say who actually is going
to lose. I think Perot makes the Republicans lose. There could be the emergence of a Jesse Jackson
or a Colin Powell to make the Democrats lose. The fact is that the polls are showing that
47 percent or 50 percent of blacks think it’s time for a black party, so that they may not
stay with the Democratic Party if Clinton doesn’t do right over issues like affirmative
action. So I think there will be one. It’s hard to say right now what the configuration
will be. Ben Wattenberg: Michael Vlahos, Progress and
Freedom Foundation. Michael Vlahos: You’ll have splits in both
parties. They may look minor in terms of challenges
to the two parties, but you’re going to see an erosion of the old parties and the
emergence of two new parties that better reflect the actual issue at hand in terms of a conflict
of visions in America. Ben Wattenberg: Have two new parties? Michael Vlahos: Well, the parties will reshape
themselves. They may be called different names. But you need to have parties today that attach
themselves to the two visions that are driving America toward whatever future it has. Ben Wattenberg: And just very briefly, what
are the two visions — one, two? Michael Vlahos: Well, one vision is basically
a paternalistic, multicultural vision of a balkanized America, run by a dominant elite. The other vision is a much more fragmented
libertarian-cum-traditional values vision. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Michael Beschloss, tell us the future, distinguished
historian. Michael Beschloss: To govern is to choose,
and third parties help major parties, Republicans and Democrats, to choose. Republicans are a majority party right now. The Democrats are the ones who are going to
have to decide what they want to do in the future. They have really eluded that question. If there is a breakout from the Democrats,
they’re going to have to choose one way or the other, left or right. Ben Wattenberg: Michael Barone, surely you
know the future. Michael Barone: Surely I know the future. I do not know the future. I have a hard time knowing the past. I will say there’s about a 40 percent chance
that we will see a serious third candidacy. It will depend on whether General Colin Powell
thinks the Republican candidate nominee is up to snuff. It will depend on whether Jesse Jackson believes
that the Clinton administration policy is unacceptable. And it will depend on whatever Ross Perot’s
decision-making process depends on. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. I know the future, but I’m not going to
reveal it right now. Thank you, Michael Barone, Ronald Walters,
Michael Beschloss, and Michael Vlahos. And thank you. Please send your questions and comments to
New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036. Or we can be reached via email at
[email protected] For “Think Tank,” I’m Ben Wattenberg. Announcer: This has been a production of BJW
Inc., in association with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content.

The Courage to Change | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


Women like me aren’t supposed to run for office I wasn’t born to a wealthy or powerful family Mother from Puerto Rico, dad from the South Bronx I was born in a place where your zip code determines your destiny My name is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez I’m an educator, an organizer, a working class New Yorker I’ve worked with expectant mothers, I’ve waited tables, and led classrooms and going into politics wasn’t in the plan But after 20 years of the same representation, we have to ask: who has New York been changing for? Every day gets harder for working families
like mine to get by The rent gets higher, health care covers less, and our income stays the same It’s clear that these changes haven’t been for us and we deserve a champion It’s time to fight for a New York that working families can afford That’s why I’m running for Congress This race is about people vs. money We’ve got people, they’ve got money It’s time we acknowledge that not all Democrats are the same That a Democrat who takes corporate money, profits off foreclosure, doesn’t live here doesn’t send his kids to our schools,
doesn’t drink our water or breathe our air cannot possibly represent us What the Bronx and Queens needs is Medicare-for-all,
tuition-free public college a federal jobs guarantee, and criminal justice reform We can do it now It doesn’t take a hundred years to do this It takes political courage A New York for the many is possible It’s time for one of us Vote for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on June 26 My name is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and I approved this message.

Analysis: Edwards’ challengers need to work together to beat him


joining us now is our political analyst
Clancy DuBose thanks for joining us what do you think overall who had the
most at stake tonight they all did because the two Republicans
had to join forces in effect to attack Edwards and try to keep him below 50%
the thrust of all the Republican efforts bringing down Trump’s family the Vice
President the President himself on Friday night it’s all about keeping John
bel Edwards below that magical 50% plus one for Edwards it’s the flip side he
needs to get to 50% plus one it’s a little more complicated between the two
Republicans because they not only need to keep Edwards below 50% but Abraham
and responding each needs to get past the other and that you know the the real
game plan for Republicans in this debate was not to attack each other but the
format plus both of them being kind of close in the polls they couldn’t resist
you saw Paul Dudley story where they went at each other for a little bit over
whether or not Abraham had donated a salary
there was another instance where Abraham asked respond II did you in fact support
common core curriculum in the schools which became very controversial and then
you turned against it were you flip-flopping let’s watch and see how
that one played out and I got a opponent here that keeps going around everywhere
I go and says Eddie respond he still supports Common Core I every time I go
somewhere he still outright lie about it and I’ve been saying this for months and
it goes back years four years ago when they took common carotid system he
didn’t know what common core was two years ago true and Allison you tell me
one thing never let it in in the first place yeah I didn’t let it in you tell
me what you’ve done to stop Jimmy one thing that you’ve done have given the
fuck tell me one thing you don’t run you can’t say it you don’t even know how
many states brought it up look at it just look that’s what you got oh that’s
a political politician trying to start don’t lie about what your brother’s not
alive all right mr. Abraham’s yeah when you need when two candidates
need to be joining forces to attack the third guy and they wind up calling each
other liars that’s not good yeah I mean I guess both of them are trying to get
in the runoff right that’s differentiation Edwards has one job when
outright responds and Abraham each has two jobs get past the other and keep
Edwards below 50% we still have some major things going on in this race
including the president coming to be a part of this why haven’t we heard a lot
do you think from governor Edwards about the fact that Trump’s coming well first
of all the governor does not have a bad personal relationship with the president
plus he has a lot of conservative white support which is basically a Trump voter
and he doesn’t want to alienate them plus the Republicans want to nationalize
this race if the governor starts talking about the president that plays into the
Republican gameplan the governor wants to keep everything focused on Louisiana
and local issues so he doesn’t want to talk good bad or indifferent about the
president or any other national issue all right Clancy we look forward to
hearing from you Saturday night we will have all of our coverage thanks so much
for being here tonight and don’t forget again this Saturday at 8 o’clock join us
on channel 4 with live election results reports from all of the major candidate
headquarters across the stage plus analysis from our political experts
including Clancy Ron Foshay and Greg Rick amore
download our new app so that you can get all of the up-to-the-minute results and
alerts we’re going to be streaming our coverage on wwl-tv comm as well and of
course on our Facebook page

COSBY 2.0: Trump Accused by 26 More Women!


in the background of the impeachment inquiry
in the background of trying to bribe Ukraine in the background of Donald Trump’s taxes. In the background of Trump abandoning the
Kurds in Syria and the immediate bombings carried out on Kurdish forces by Turkey. There are 26 new sexual assault allegations
against Donald Trump. There is a new book, all the presidents of
women, Donald Trump and the making of a predator. The book was written by Barry Levine and Monique
L Phi E, Z where there are 43 new allegations of inappropriate behavior with women by Donald
Trump. Of those 43 26 rise to what we would realistically
call unwanted sexual contact or sexual assault, as many of us refer to it, the theme is always
the same. Trump is using Trump’s throwing his wealth
around. Trump’s throwing his power around and sometimes
he’s throwing his weight around in a literal sense. The fact that he is physically a large guy,
uh, to sexually assault women, to touch them in bathrooms, everything that you can imagine. One example has Donald Trump allegedly hiding
behind a tapestry to grope a woman at his Mar-a-Lago estate. There are literally dozens of examples. I’m not going to go through all of them here. The book even identifies the women that Melania
Trump viewed at the time as the biggest threats to her status as Donald Trump’s primary girlfriend. Melania, of course, now Trump’s wife and the
first lady, uh, during a brief breakup between Donald Trump and Melania over trust issues. Trump report reportedly really scaled up the
sexual assaults on women. And, uh, I think this is an important point
at which I should mention there are people who are talking about the infidelity component
of Donald Trump and Melania Trump’s relationship. I don’t care about that. I truly could not care less about that. I don’t care if bill Clinton cheats on Hillary. I don’t care if Trump tweets on Melania, which
obviously he does. I mean these paid off mistresses during his
marriage. That’s not really the important part. They can do whatever they want in their relationship,
whatever relationship works for them, good for them. The important parts are, we’ve got a predator
here who is sexually assaulting women. This is someone who is possibly illegally
paying off the women. And these are women whose stories are often
suppressed by everything from physical threats to hush money. Remember that in the case of stormy Daniels,
she alleges that her, uh, I believe it’s daughter, uh, was threatened implicitly by a guy in
a parking lot who came up to her saying, you don’t want to talk about this Trump stuff. And there has been no accountability. In part, there has been no accountability
because the Trump electorate, even evangelicals who claim to vote their values, they would
rather vote for a serial sex assaulter than for a Democrat period. I mean that, that’s, it’s a simple as that
with millions of Republican voters. And in the end, uh, the big picture is these
are people who claim that they are all about their values, but then they don’t actually
live them. They don’t actually vote them. Certainly. Uh, and it’s important to remember, you know,
Trump’s previously said, when you’re famous or rich or whatever, they just let you do
it. Apparently not. Uh, just when we think that we are starting
to kind of wrap our heads around how disgusting he is, we learn of about 26 new allegations
in this case. And meanwhile, I mean, this is, it gives me
the chills. Mike Pence, his wife Karen Pence, said, I
believe it was at a rally last night or the night before and minute in Minnesota that
she loves how Donald Trump treats young women. Can you imagine being either this disconnected
from reality, uh, or this, uh, malignantly a dishonest to go onto a stage and say about
a guy who has talked about how if Ivanka weren’t his daughter. Dot. Dot. Dot. Who has, uh, treated so many women terribly
who has admitted to just going up and grabbing whatever it is that he grabs for her to say
he loves, she loves how he treats young women. Now I do think it would be good to prevent
this story from going away again because it gets buried. And when you have, you know, the 18th the
19th the 20th I mean we’ve got it’s 16 or 17 allegations. We had, this is 26 more. We’re talking about around 45 women that are
two different degrees accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault. I get that he’s not going to face legal consequences. The statute of limitations has elapsed on
many of these, but it feels like the least we can do is keep this in the news. Don’t let it get buried so that it’s in addition
to trying to extort Ukraine and this story and that political scandal and not cooperating
with impeachment and all of this other stuff. In addition to all of that stuff, we can keep
the fact that there’s no way all of these women are making this up in the news, that
there is one way to hold Donald Trump accountable no matter what the statute of limitations
is on sexual assault and that’s by voting him out of office in November of 2020 I believe
there would be a benefit to keeping this in the news. Although Trump via political scandal has done
a really good job of making the sexual assault stories go away, uh, and the media, you know,
they’ll, when a story is hot, they will try to pull in. Uh, one of the accusers, for example, E Jean
Carol was one that Anderson Cooper interviewed, interviewed didn’t go particularly well, but
once that initial ratings hit goes away, the stories tend to go away as well. And I think that this is definitely something
that should be kept in the news. Let’s take a quick break. Make sure you’re following the David [inaudible] when show on Instagram at David Pakman show
while you were there. Follow me on
[email protected]m.

Trump Would Reject Climate Refugees (That He Creates)


let’s go to the phones and see what is on
people’s minds today. The phone number is of course (617) 830-4750
and we will start today from our caller from the seven three seven area code color from
seven three seven. What’s your name? Where are you calling from? Hello. That is you. It this Bay. Yes, it is. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um, so I was about to ask a question. Yep. Um, it’s on the topic of climate change. It has been estimated that by the year 2050,
there will be 200 million climate refugees in countries such as New Zealand, which I’m
from, right? We have deported climate refugees when those
people have been in need. And I also understand that Donald Trump has
some very inhumane policies at the border and in regards to rejecting asylum seekers
that are coming in to the United States, I wonder what the rate of job losses that are
estimated to come about due to automation in the next 20 years. We have, we could see the rise of horrific
demagoguery and potentially a sort of fascist line and a fascist in a fascist way of thinking
more and more in our politics. Yeah. So that’s interesting the way you phrase it
and frame it because the climate refugee crisis is going to your so, so okay. On the one hand you will have people like
me who have been saying, you need to understand that climate destabilization is a national
security issue. It is a population issue. It is a public health issue because it has
these externalities. We’re eventually, people are going to need
to go somewhere else. On the other hand, it is going to be you. I mean it’s like, listen, we already know
how the anti-immigrant right is going to use it. They’ll say this now justifies making our
immigration law even more draconian and [inaudible] and honestly, they will probably convince
some people with those arguments. Uh, probably. Yeah. Um, there has to be a massive cultural shift
to take place. Yeah. S um, recent examples like say what the Australians
are doing, which I do recommend you pay attention to with detaining refugees on Madison [inaudible]
become more and more mainstream. I could see some horrific possibilities become
the case. Who’s to say that a, you know, he’s the site
us Navy won’t simply reject and asylum seeking vessel coming in from say the Pacific right
from a nation such as care about and to for Lou and tow that boat out into un-see where
the waters and leave and and leave a VSL that is unseaworthy to simply sink. Of course, if Donald Trump was president in
30 years, the logical extension of his attitude today towards immigrants would be, Hey folks,
we’re closed the, but you just, you can’t come in. We’re closed. Boat’s going to have to go somewhere else. I mean, I don’t think it would even be remotely
surprising that that’s how he would react to the scenario. Your, your outline. Yeah, for sure. I just see this situation as being so damn
diarrhea. There’s no other way for me to put it. Right. Okay. Yeah. We’re going to have to bleep that and I appreciate
your phone call and a very well-made point and we will build up that and we will be in
very good shape. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate the phone call. We will talk to you soon.

Why It Matters If We Elect a Real Progressive


Let’s go next to our caller from the two eight
one area code. Who’s calling today from two eight one Hey David, this is Jared from Houston. Hey Jared, what’s going on? So I’m a first time caller and I voted for
Bernie in 2016 in the primary. Okay. And one of the reasons why I’m moving off
of him, because I’ve been thinking not necessarily about his electability, but what he could
actually do if he got elected. So let’s, like, let’s, let’s take the best
case scenario. He gets a house and Senate that’s democratic. Yep. We know like a lot of Dems oppose Medicare
for all. And you already mentioned the campaign finance
reform. Yeah. And what I’m worried about. He gets elected, he gets pushed back by moderate
Democrats, progresses, get depressed, and then the Republicans will sweep back in 22
because the Democrats are in fighting so much. And I just wanted to know, do you think if
he were to get elected, could he kind of keep that democratic? Would they want to send it? Could he keep it even United? So let’s take it, let’s make it less hypothetical
because even in your hypothesis, there’s already things you’re mentioning that aren’t going
to happen. So let me give you an example. The Senate is not going democratic in 2020
unless I am incredibly missing something. So the idea that in his first two years Bernie
will have the house and Senate not going to happen. Now as far as 2022 typically a new president has their first midterm not go their way. Everything is kind of different right now. And the 2022 Senate map actually favors Democrats. So let’s take the conversation in a slightly
different direction, which is you are given that you are right, that for example, not
every Democrat is on board with Medicare for all anyway. What is the benefit of having a president
who wants Medicare for all versus a president like Joe Biden who wants to like tweak Obamacare
and add a public option? And the answer is you often end up, unfortunately
this is sort of how it works. You often end up in a sort of middle of the
road position between what the party in power wants in the middle of what the party in power
wants. So what I can tell you is the following. If Bernie is the president and Democrats have
the Senate and Democrats have the house, it’s, I feel very plausible that we don’t get Medicare
for all, but whatever we end up negotiating too is going to be way better than what we
will get if Joe Biden is president. Right. So that’s my approach and everything you’re
saying is correct, but we’re still way better off. Yeah, that makes sense. I think it’s just like, I just think about
the whole no middle ground. I’m kind of concerned that a lot of Bernie
supporters would not even accept that. Even the fee where the move, if he moves anywhere,
right. Well it’s not going to be up to them ultimately. Right. I mean we vote to elect the president. Trump did a whole bunch of stuff. He didn’t tell his supporters he was going
to do at a certain point it’s like listen, they might not like it, but ultimately Bernie
is going to get whoever is president will get whatever is closest to what they want
that they can get at the time. And that’s kind of the way politics works. Okay. Thank you. Alright, uh, great to hear from you. I appreciate the phone call. Let’s take a quick break. If you are holding, don’t hang up. Don’t hang up with your holding because we
will go right back to the phones after this.

400 Richest Now Paying LOWER Taxes Than Anyone Else


We reached a new high or a new low, depending
on your perspective in the United States in the growth of [inaudible] income inequality and the 400 richest Americans are
now paying a lower total tax rate, federal, state, and local than any other income group. This is based on 2018 data, which has now
been analyzed. There is a really good piece in the New York
times by David Lennart Leonhard. I’m not exactly sure how he pronounces his
last name, uh, about this. And when you look at the, uh, the data and
the visualizations of the data back in 1950, the top 400 richest Americans paid the most
in taxes when you combined federal, state and local 50 years later, even in the year
2000, the richest 400 didn’t pay the highest total rates, but it was still a much higher
rate than the poor and middle class. You still had the very rich but not quite
as rich as the richness. 400 paying slightly higher rates than the
richest 400. But no question that those richest 400 were
paying a higher total rate federal, state and local than lower income earners. And then last year in 2018 the richest 400
actually paid the lowest total rate of any income group. Now you might see that. You might hear me say this and wonder how
is that possible? Because when you look at the federal tax brackets
for 2018 for example, uh, we see that the tax bracket is highest at 37% for those earning
over $500,000. But what you need to understand is that is
that we’re talking here about a group [inaudible] 400 that is so far above the entryway to that
top bracket of 500,000 that they have so many different mechanisms for deductions and loopholes
and exclusions and the moving around of money on paper that they now are paying the lowest
combined federal, state and local rate of any income group. Now let’s discuss a common argument that we
hear from the American right wing, which is, listen, whatever rules you pass, whatever
tax law you change, the rich will figure out a way to avoid those taxes. So what’s the point? They’ll get better accountants. They will somehow figure out a way to avoid
those taxes. This is completely untrue. Number one, look at the historical numbers
I just showed you, right? I mean, the rich have historically not avoided
all taxes paid the lowest rates they used to pay more than lower income brackets. So historically we know that that argument
is bogus. Number two, Oh, and I should mention, we’re
talking about the very, very rich here. We’re talking about the richest 400 the richest
0.1% we are not talking about a doctor making $300,000 okay? That’s not who we’re talking about here. And it’s important to understand that there
is a distinction here. Number two, historically attempt to collect
more taxes have worked. We know that when we look at historical tax
collections, and number three, if the rich could just avoid any new taxes, why would
they work so hard? Why would they spend so much time and money
and political capital fighting new taxes? Because they know that they would be affected
by them. So that argument is a completely bogus and
ridiculous argument. These are basically just choices to be made
by societies. And the trick of course, by the very rich
and corporations and the upper class is to foam that class warfare down below. This has always been the technique you hear
from some brainwashed right wingers that the left of the middle class and the lower middle
class, the poor are the ones fighting and pushing, you know, race warfare, class warfare,
that if it weren’t for them, then everything would just be completely fine. But understand that this is a technique that
the very rich use look at the battle between American born restaurant and agricultural
workers and so-called illegals from Latin America coming here to steal your jobs. That is a battle that corporate America and
the super rich and the upper class want you to be having. Why? Because if you as an American born restaurant
worker are fighting against the idea of some hardworking Mexican dad coming here to quote,
steal your job, uh, you are not going to be fighting the actual people that are deciding
policy and that are controlling the system and maintaining the status quo. It is by design. A another example, while the super rich and
corporate media talk about millennials are lazy and this and that, it’s the super rich
who win by being ignored. They take the focus off of the fact that the
student loan burden on millennials is astronomical. They remove any discussion whatsoever of how
the ratio between the cost of college and the salary one expects to earn has fallen
completely out of whack compared to what it was 30 40 years ago. This is all by design and it is really important
that we not allow that to distract us from what actually needs to be done when it comes
to policy because when we’re having the wrong debate, they win. That’s the, the sick genius of it. They don’t care who wins these false debates,
right? If you’re a big corporation and you benefit
from cheap labor and deregulation of labor and all of this stuff, do you care whether
the quote, illegals win against the poor American born white people in the battle around who’s
going to steal who’s job? No. The fact that it’s a battle that is even going
on means that you win. And this is what we fundamentally have to
understand when we look at these numbers. So inequality, uh, certainly getting worse
and worse, partially on the back of a tax code that now has the richest 400 Americans
in the lowest total tax bracket. When you combine federal, state, and local.