Amy Klobuchar: I Am A Fresh New Face In Politics | Morning Joe | MSNBC


>>>I LEARNED WHAT IT WAS LIKE>>>I LEARNED WHAT IT WAS LIKE NOT TO HAVE A PERFECT LIFE. NOT TO HAVE A PERFECT LIFE. WHAT IT’S LIKE NOT TO HAVE YOUR WHAT IT’S LIKE NOT TO HAVE YOUR DAD THERE OR CHRISTMAS MORNING. DAD THERE OR CHRISTMAS MORNING. WHAT I’VE LEARNED FROM THAT, WHAT I’VE LEARNED FROM THAT, NUMBER ONE, RESILIENCE. NUMBER ONE, RESILIENCE. GOT TO PICK YOURSELF UP NO GOT TO PICK YOURSELF UP NO MATTER WHAT, GOOD QUALITY IN A MATTER WHAT, GOOD QUALITY IN A PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ]>>>ALL RIGHT.>>>ALL RIGHT. WELCOME BACK. WELCOME BACK. COME ON IN. COME ON IN. THIS IS GETTING FUN. THIS IS GETTING FUN. THAT WAS SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR THAT WAS SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR SPEAKING ABOUT THE POWER OF SPEAKING ABOUT THE POWER OF ADDICTION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, A ADDICTION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, A STATE HIT HARD BY THE OPIOID STATE HIT HARD BY THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC. EPIDEMIC. THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOINS US RIGHT HERE, CANDIDATE JOINS US RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW. ALSO WITH IS, COLUMNIST FOR THE ALSO WITH IS, COLUMNIST FOR THE “WASHINGTON POST,” GREAT TO YOU “WASHINGTON POST,” GREAT TO YOU HAVE BOTH WITH US. HAVE BOTH WITH US. HOW ARE YOU FEELING, AMY? HOW ARE YOU FEELING, AMY?>>EXCELLENT.>>EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ] WE — SOMETHING’S HAPPENING WE — SOMETHING’S HAPPENING HERE. HERE.>>YEAH.>>YEAH.>>AND I THINK A LOT OF IT I’VE>>AND I THINK A LOT OF IT I’VE BEEN HERE. BEEN HERE. I THINK 22 TIMES. I THINK 22 TIMES. BUT AFTER THAT DEBATE, SOMETHING BUT AFTER THAT DEBATE, SOMETHING SWITCHED, AND WE HAD DONE A LOT SWITCHED, AND WE HAD DONE A LOT OF HARD WORK TO GET THERE BUT OF HARD WORK TO GET THERE BUT IT’S ALLOWED THE PEOPLE OF NEW IT’S ALLOWED THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TO SEE ME IN A HAMPSHIRE TO SEE ME IN A DIFFERENT WAY. DIFFERENT WAY. NOT JUST MY POLICIES BUT WHEN I NOT JUST MY POLICIES BUT WHEN I WAS COMING FROM, FROM MY HEART. WAS COMING FROM, FROM MY HEART.>>ALSO, I’VE COACHED FOOTBALL>>ALSO, I’VE COACHED FOOTBALL AND I COACH, I COACH BASEBALL AND I COACH, I COACH BASEBALL NOW AND SOMETIMES I HAVE TO GO NOW AND SOMETIMES I HAVE TO GO LIKE THIS TO THE KIDS. LIKE THIS TO THE KIDS. BECAUSE THEY’RE LIKE — 11, 12 BECAUSE THEY’RE LIKE — 11, 12 YEARS OLD. YEARS OLD. TALKING — OVER HERE. TALKING — OVER HERE. HEY. HEY. RIGHT HERE. RIGHT HERE. HEY! HEY! YOU’VE BEEN DOING THAT TO US THE YOU’VE BEEN DOING THAT TO US THE WHOLE TIME. WHOLE TIME. LIKE, HEY, OVER HERE. LIKE, HEY, OVER HERE. OVER HERE. OVER HERE.>>HELLO!>>HELLO! YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE NLTSDS. EVERYBODY ELSE NLTSDS.>>AND NOW, YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF>>AND NOW, YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF FOCUSSED. FOCUSSED.>>EXACTLY.>>EXACTLY. THE DAY BEFORE THE PRIMARY. THE DAY BEFORE THE PRIMARY. BUT WHATEVER. BUT WHATEVER.>>WHEN YOU WANT.>>WHEN YOU WANT. AND YOU DON’T WANT IT SIX MONTHS AND YOU DON’T WANT IT SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE PRIMARY. BEFORE THE PRIMARY.>>ANYWAY, WE HAVE, SINCE THE>>ANYWAY, WE HAVE, SINCE THE DEBATE, RAISED OVER $3 MILLION DEBATE, RAISED OVER $3 MILLION FROM REGULAR PEOPLE ONLINE. FROM REGULAR PEOPLE ONLINE.>>THAT’S PRETTY GOOD!>>THAT’S PRETTY GOOD!>>WE HAVE BEEN SURGING IN POLLS>>WE HAVE BEEN SURGING IN POLLS AND RECORD CROWDS AT ALL OF OUR AND RECORD CROWDS AT ALL OF OUR EVENTS INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO WERE EVENTS INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPORTING OTHER CANDIDATES BUT SUPPORTING OTHER CANDIDATES BUT ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE INDEPENDENTS. INDEPENDENTS.>>SO WHY?>>SO WHY? WHAT’S HAPPENING? WHAT’S HAPPENING? WHAT’S HAPPENING? WHAT’S HAPPENING?>>IS IT THE ISSUES?>>IS IT THE ISSUES? IS IT YOU? IS IT YOU?>>I THINK PART WAS I STOOD UP>>I THINK PART WAS I STOOD UP ON THAT STAGE AND I SHOWED HOW I ON THAT STAGE AND I SHOWED HOW I WAS DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF MY WAS DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF MY OPPONENTS. OPPONENTS. MAYBE ONE OF THE MOST DRAMATIC MAYBE ONE OF THE MOST DRAMATIC MOMENTS WAS WHEN GEORGE MOMENTS WAS WHEN GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS ASKED, DOES STEPHANOPOULOS ASKED, DOES ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A SOCIALIST LEADING THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST LEADING THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET AND I SAID, BERNIE AND I TICKET AND I SAID, BERNIE AND I ARE FRIENDS, WHICH IS TRUE, WE ARE FRIENDS, WHICH IS TRUE, WE CAME INTO THE SENATE, BUT, YEAH, CAME INTO THE SENATE, BUT, YEAH, I HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT WAS THE I HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID IT ON THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID IT ON THE STAGE. STAGE. AND. AND.>>WOW.>>WOW.>>I THINK THAT LAUNCHED A –>>I THINK THAT LAUNCHED A — THOUGHT PROCESS IN A LOT OF THOUGHT PROCESS IN A LOT OF VOTERS HEADS. VOTERS HEADS. WERE LIKE, HMM. WERE LIKE, HMM. LET ME LOOK AT HER. LET ME LOOK AT HER. SO I THEN WAS ABLE TO TALK ABOUT SO I THEN WAS ABLE TO TALK ABOUT MY DIFFERENT VIEWS AND ONE OF MY DIFFERENT VIEWS AND ONE OF THE PRACTICAL THINGS WHERE I’M THE PRACTICAL THINGS WHERE I’M REALLY DIFFERENT HERE IN NEW REALLY DIFFERENT HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE IS JUST MY PLAN FOR HAMPSHIRE IS JUST MY PLAN FOR EDUCATION. EDUCATION. A BIG DEAL IN THIS STATE, WHICH A BIG DEAL IN THIS STATE, WHICH IS TO REALLY CONNECT WHAT’S IS TO REALLY CONNECT WHAT’S GOING ON WITH OUR ECONOMY WITH GOING ON WITH OUR ECONOMY WITH WHAT’S HAPPENING IN OUR WHAT’S HAPPENING IN OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM. EDUCATION SYSTEM. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE OVER 1 WE’RE GOING TO HAVE OVER 1 MILLION OPENINGS FOR HOME HEALTH MILLION OPENINGS FOR HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS AND 100,000 FOR CARE WORKERS AND 100,000 FOR NURSING ASSISTANTS. NURSING ASSISTANTS. OVER 70,000 OPENINGS FOR OVER 70,000 OPENINGS FOR ELECTRICIANS. ELECTRICIANS. NOT A SHORTAGE OF SPORTS NOT A SHORTAGE OF SPORTS MARKETING DEGREES. MARKETING DEGREES. SOMEONE HAS ONE OUT THERE. SOMEONE HAS ONE OUT THERE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SHORTAGE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SHORTAGE OF PLUMBERS. OF PLUMBERS. IT’S LOOKING AT FUNDING K-12. IT’S LOOKING AT FUNDING K-12. FOCUSING ON THE ONE AND TWO-YEAR FOCUSING ON THE ONE AND TWO-YEAR DEGREES AND IT’S BETTER FOR OUR DEGREES AND IT’S BETTER FOR OUR ECONOMY AND DOUBLING PROGRAMS. ECONOMY AND DOUBLING PROGRAMS.>>SPORTS MARKETING DEGREES?>>SPORTS MARKETING DEGREES?>>WHAT?>>WHAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE?>>I WISH!>>I WISH! I WAS — I WAS BORN TOO EARLY, I WAS — I WAS BORN TOO EARLY, APPARENTLY. APPARENTLY. MY GOD. MY GOD.>>WILLIE HAS ONE.>>WILLIE HAS ONE.>>I KNOW.>>I KNOW. I WISH I DID. I WISH I DID. WISH I DID. WISH I DID. WORK FOR THE NEW YORK YANKEES, WORK FOR THE NEW YORK YANKEES, FRONT OFFICE. FRONT OFFICE. [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ]>>AH, THAT WAS — OH!>>AH, THAT WAS — OH! LOOK AT THAT. LOOK AT THAT.>>BOO!>>BOO!>>I KNEW THAT WOULD GO OVER>>I KNEW THAT WOULD GO OVER WELL IN THIS ROOM. WELL IN THIS ROOM. I’M NOT POLLING WELL IN NEW I’M NOT POLLING WELL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. HAMPSHIRE.>>AND A POLITICIAN, THE DAY>>AND A POLITICIAN, THE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY. PRIMARY. YOU DON’T DO THAT. YOU DON’T DO THAT.>>AND TALKED A LOT ABOUT YOUR>>AND TALKED A LOT ABOUT YOUR CONTRAST WITH BERNIE SANDERS. CONTRAST WITH BERNIE SANDERS.>>YES.>>YES.>>UP IN A LATEST POLL IN THIRD>>UP IN A LATEST POLL IN THIRD PLACE NOW NIPPING AT HEELS SOON PLACE NOW NIPPING AT HEELS SOON OF MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG. OF MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG. HOW DO YOU CONTRAST YOURSELF HOW DO YOU CONTRAST YOURSELF WITH MAYOR BUTTIGIEG? WITH MAYOR BUTTIGIEG? IN OTHER WORDS, IN A SIMILAR IN OTHER WORDS, IN A SIMILAR LANE NOT FOR MED CUELLARICARE FO LANE NOT FOR MED CUELLARICARE FO AN OPTION, WON’T TAKE AWAY YOUR AN OPTION, WON’T TAKE AWAY YOUR PRIVATE INSURANCE. PRIVATE INSURANCE. WHAT’S THE DISHESFFERENCE BETWEE WHAT’S THE DISHESFFERENCE BETWEE YOU AND PETE BUTTIGIEG ON YOU AND PETE BUTTIGIEG ON POLICY? POLICY?>>MY AGE, 59, THE NEW AGE,>>MY AGE, 59, THE NEW AGE, THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.>>AND I’M 32.>>AND I’M 32.>>IN THIS FIELD, THIS IS NEW.>>IN THIS FIELD, THIS IS NEW. SECOND THING, ACTUALLY GOTTEN SECOND THING, ACTUALLY GOTTEN THINGS DONE THROUGH THE GRIDLOCK THINGS DONE THROUGH THE GRIDLOCK OF WASHINGTON. OF WASHINGTON. PASSED OVER 100 BILLS AS A LEAD PASSED OVER 100 BILLS AS A LEAD DEMOCRAT. DEMOCRAT. YOU LOOK AT AN OPPONENT FOR YOU LOOK AT AN OPPONENT FOR DONALD TRUMP I’D SAY THAT IS A DONALD TRUMP I’D SAY THAT IS A NICE MATCHUP, BECAUSE HE TALKS NICE MATCHUP, BECAUSE HE TALKS AND BLUSTERS A LOT, BUT HASN’T AND BLUSTERS A LOT, BUT HASN’T HELPED PEOPLE WITH THINGS LIKE HELPED PEOPLE WITH THINGS LIKE RISING PHARMACEUTICAL PRICES OR RISING PHARMACEUTICAL PRICES OR RAIL TO MANCHESTER, LITERALLY RAIL TO MANCHESTER, LITERALLY RIGHT NOW YOU CAN GET BETTER RIGHT NOW YOU CAN GET BETTER CELL SERVICE IN ICELAND WITH ALL CELL SERVICE IN ICELAND WITH ALL OF ITS VOLCANOES AND THAT YOU OF ITS VOLCANOES AND THAT YOU CAN IN FRANKONIA NOTCH, NEW CAN IN FRANKONIA NOTCH, NEW HAMPSHIRE. HAMPSHIRE. ONE THING THAT UNIFIES US WE ONE THING THAT UNIFIES US WE WANT TO WIN AND WIN BIG AND I’VE WANT TO WIN AND WIN BIG AND I’VE WON IN RURAL AREASISH SUBURBAN WON IN RURAL AREASISH SUBURBAN DISTRICTS EVERY SINGLE TIME DISTRICTS EVERY SINGLE TIME INCLUDING MICHELE BACHMANN’S INCLUDING MICHELE BACHMANN’S DISTRICT, OKAY. DISTRICT, OKAY. THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.>>YOON2,000 VOTES SEPARATED HIL>>YOON2,000 VOTES SEPARATED HIL CLINTON/DONALD TRUMP. CLINTON/DONALD TRUMP. SHE WON THE STATE, BUT BARELY. SHE WON THE STATE, BUT BARELY. THEY WANT A CANDIDATE THAT CAN THEY WANT A CANDIDATE THAT CAN ACTUALLY BRING PEOPLE WITH HER. ACTUALLY BRING PEOPLE WITH HER.>>DO YOU AGREE WITH VICE>>DO YOU AGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT BIDEN’S CONCERN, PUT PRESIDENT BIDEN’S CONCERN, PUT UP AN AD, A MAYOR ISN’T READY TO UP AN AD, A MAYOR ISN’T READY TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF? BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF?>>VERY MUCH I RESPECT MAYOR>>VERY MUCH I RESPECT MAYOR PETE’S EXPERIENCE IN THE PETE’S EXPERIENCE IN THE MILITARY AND RESPECT A LOT OF MILITARY AND RESPECT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE IN PEOPLE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE IN SMALL TOWNS. SMALL TOWNS. I’VE GOT A LOT OF SMALL TOWNS. I’VE GOT A LOT OF SMALL TOWNS. NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS A LOT OF SMALL NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS A LOT OF SMALL TOWNS. TOWNS. I THINK THE ADDED EXPERIENCE. I THINK THE ADDED EXPERIENCE. I WAS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS I WAS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL FOR EIGHT YEARS. WELL FOR EIGHT YEARS. AND I THINK THE, AS AN ELECTED AND I THINK THE, AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, BUT I THINK THE ADDED OFFICIAL, BUT I THINK THE ADDED EXPERIENCE I HAVE IS 12 YEARS AS EXPERIENCE I HAVE IS 12 YEARS AS A U.S. SENATOR. A U.S. SENATOR. IT IS ACTUALLY PASSING BILLS AND IT IS ACTUALLY PASSING BILLS AND KNOWING HOW TO WORK ACROSS THE KNOWING HOW TO WORK ACROSS THE AISLE. AISLE.>>BUT IS A MAYOR OF A>>BUT IS A MAYOR OF A 100,000-PERSON TOWN READY TO BE 100,000-PERSON TOWN READY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?>>I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT>>I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT EVERYONE ON THAT DEBATE STAGE EVERYONE ON THAT DEBATE STAGE WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN PRESIDENT TRUMP. PRESIDENT TRUMP. [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ] I BELIEVE THAT — ANY ONE — I I BELIEVE THAT — ANY ONE — I THINK THAT — THAT MY EXPERIENCE THINK THAT — THAT MY EXPERIENCE IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HERE, IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HERE, AND IT’S ALSO THE EXPERIENCE OF AND IT’S ALSO THE EXPERIENCE OF GETTING THE RESPECT FROM PEOPLE GETTING THE RESPECT FROM PEOPLE ACROSS THE AISLE. ACROSS THE AISLE. LOOK AT THE ENDORSEMENT I’VE LOOK AT THE ENDORSEMENT I’VE GOTTEN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. GOTTEN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER. EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER. UNION LEADER. UNION LEADER. KEEN SENTINEL AND NOT TO MENTION

Taiwan 2020 Election: Tsai Ing-wen wins second presidential term


‘S been interpreted as a blow to beijing, as well. It was a landslide victory for Taiwan’s incumbent president. She won re-election. Her party, the dpp won a majority in parliament. On top of that, she broke a record. She won the highest number of votes since the first direct presidential election in Taiwan decades ago. Take a look.>>Triumph in Taiwan for incumbent president in a re-election landslide that seemed unlikely six months ago. The Chinese skeptic president declaring victory winning the highest number of votes since the presidential election in 1996. The results of the election carry an added significance, she says, because they show in our democracy our sovereignty is threatened, Taiwan people will shout our determination back even more loudly. Scenes of jubilation about the president’s supporters. Disappointment for the main rival. The candidate performs greater engagement with beijing and criticized China policy and the economic impact on Taiwan. After they took office in 2016, relations between Taiwan and China deteriorated. Taiwan lost diplomatic ties with a number of foreign governments and China suspended issuing Visas or mainland tourists visiting the island. Thai was down in the polls after her party suffered devastating local election results in 2008. That changed as more and more voters became propelled by the pressure from beijing.>>When we talk about politics, most important issue in Taiwan is the dependency of youification. Beijing by pressuring the world to turn the back on Taiwan, motivates people to return to support her.>>XI jinping declared Taiwan should reunify with China under one country two systems. Something she rejects. In her victory speech, she says I also hope China understands that our democratically elected leader and government will not concede to beijing’s threats. Last year as China flexed its muscle sending the aircraft carrier through the Taiwan straight, she employed her own form of soft power. Using an may-style imagery. A pair of cat ears in campaign posters, and putting her own beloved pet front and center.>>Not just the cat pictures or but her willingness to appear on YouTube shows with younger voters and show she’s trying to make a concerted effort to connect with the youth. Her passing of same-sex marriage in Taiwan helped with the info.>>She has been described as the iron cat lady but, Alisyn, make no mistake, she’s a former academic. She’s a tough, highly experienced tech karat who is

1994 elections: Is it the end of an era? — with Karlyn Bowman (1994) | THINK TANK


Ben Wattenberg: Hello. I’m Ben Wattenberg.
Last week American voters sent congressional Democrats to a crushing defeat. Does this
lopsided election signal a major realignment in American politics, or was it simply a natural
swing of the electoral pendulum? Joining us to sort through the conflict and
the consensus are E. J. Dionne, a resident scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars and author of “Why Americans Hate Politics”; Michael Vlahos, senior fellow
at the Progress and Freedom Foundation; Karlyn Bowman, a colleague of mine and a resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Stephen Hess, senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution and author of “Live from Capitol Hill: Studies of Congress and the Media.” The topic before this house: the 1994 elections.
Is this the end of an era? This week on “Think Tank.” Why did Americans vote the way they did? And
where does this election fit in the American electoral history? Is it a post–New Deal
realignment, the rise of neo-populism, or did fed up voters just want to throw the bums
out? Nasty, aggressive, and very expensive election
campaigns were the rule on both sides in 1994, but American voters turned out to register
their displeasure chiefly with the Democrats. The Republicans picked up well over the necessary
40 seats to wrest control of the House from the Democrats for the first time in 40 years.
In the Senate, Republicans gained eight seats. Across the country, powerful politicians lost
to upstarts. Voters in the 5th District of Washington ejected Speaker of the House Tom
Foley. Dan Rostenkowski’s Chicago voters ousted him after 36 years. Some threatened
Democrats, such as Ted Kennedy, Charles Robb, and Dianne Feinstein, held on to their seats;
but in January, Republican Bob Dole will be majority leader of the Senate, and Newt Gingrich
will be the next Speaker of the House. E. J. Dionne, was this election and earthquake,
a tidal wave, a so-called realigning election that you as a young man will have to live
with the consequences for the rest of your life? E. J. Dionne: Well, I think it was a tidal
wave, but like a lot of tidal waves, you don’t quite know what the effects are going to be
when it hits. I think part of it, especially in the South, was part of a continuing realignment
toward the Republicans. And I think part of it was an expression of discontent that’s
been out there for some years and could continue to take different forms as time goes on. Ben Wattenberg: Steve? Stephen Hess: Well, obviously any election
that produces a Republican House for the first time in 40 years has to be at least a tidal
wave. I think I may be a good deal more skeptical than some of my colleagues about realignment.
An electorate that throws out Republicans two years ago and elects Democrats, two years
later throws out the Democrats that they’ve just elected and elects Republicans? Well,
who knows what they’re going to do two years from now? Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn? Karlyn Bowman: Tidal wave, tsunami, watershed
— I’m not sure what the appropriate word is, but I’m not sure I’ll see another
election like this in my lifetime. The last time the Republicans won a majority of the
popular vote for the House was 1946. Ben Wattenberg: That’s almost half a century
ago. Karlyn Bowman: That’s right. A major change. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Michael? Michael Vlahos: Well, it could be a realignment,
and it could be the beginning of a long Republican stewardship, but that is going to have to
be up to them to create the vision that follows the shift in Congress. This happened in the 1890s, and that’s Newt’s
favorite period. And he brings up Mark Hannah a lot. In the 1890s you had Democrats controlling
Congress for nine out of the 10 Congresses before then, and then suddenly it shifted
by almost 100 seats, more than 100 seats, in 1895. And that was followed up the next
year by a watershed presidential election, which decided the course for the country.
And — Ben Wattenberg: That was William Jennings
Brian versus — Michael Vlahos: Right. And McKinley. And basically
— Ben Wattenberg: Grover Cleveland — versus
McKinley, right. Michael Vlahos: But basically you had a struggle
going on between backward-looking populists and forward-looking sort of immigrant, urban
industrial Republicans, and the Republicans won out and set up 35 years of dominance. Ben Wattenberg: So what you’re saying is
that this will be a — may well be a realigning election only if a Republican wins in 1996? Michael Vlahos: No, no. No, only if the Republicans
capture a vision, and of course — Ben Wattenberg: Capture a vision? Michael Vlahos: Yeah, they could win in ’96
and still blow it, but — Ben Wattenberg: Oh, I understand. But if a
Republican president wins in ’96 and they keep control of both houses, Steve, would
you then — Stephen Hess: Well, when you talk — Ben Wattenberg: — be convinced that — Stephen Hess: Yeah, sure, because you’ve
got to have an event. When you talk about realignments, we talk about Jackson, we talk
about what happened in 1828 — Ben Wattenberg: Andrew, not Scoop. [Laughter.] Stephen Hess: Andrew, not Scoop. You talk
about a realignment that was the Civil War. You talk about the realignment that Michael
talked about with monetary and industrial policy after the panic of 1893. You talk about
the Great Depression producing an alignment. I don’t think that there is a comparable
issue today. I know Michael disagrees with me, but he does it by collecting a variety
of — Michael Vlahos: Issues aren’t always clear. E. J. Dionne: I think Michael’s right in
picking the 1890s as a relevant period, but I’m not sure we know it comes out quite
that way. Michael Vlahos: Yeah. E. J. Dionne: Because I think what we’re
going through now as a country is a kind of series of crises related to globalization,
technological change. That’s creating a lot of uneasiness among voters. It’s the
same kind of uneasiness that happened during industrialization in the period from the Civil
War to the 1900s. You can talk about the realignment toward
the Republicans with William McKinley, but that was also followed immediately by the
Progressive Era. And I think you can make a case that the country could move in one
of two directions. It could move toward a kind of conservative vision, or it could move
toward something like the progressives did in terms of reform, including social reform. Ben Wattenberg: Now, you talk about the globalization
of the economy and technological change, and I want to ask you all what caused the voters
to vote as they did. But I want to mention one or two polls beforehand so you might get
a slight clue as to what I think. Shortly before the election, a Washington
Post/ABC — E. J., you work for The Washington Post — an ABC — a Washington Post/ABC
poll showed 68 percent of the public regarded social issues as the most important problem,
while only 13 percent said it was economic issues. Michael Vlahos: But don’t confuse the two.
I mean, we’re in a period of economic transformation, just like the 1890s, and the social dislocation
that comes out of economic transformation is the issue that affects people. Their lives
are being torn apart. And that’s what’s going on. Ben Wattenberg: Hey, look, this social issue
stuff — I was just reading Barry Goldwater’s 1964 — Michael Vlahos: Right. Karlyn Bowman: Good choice. Ben Wattenberg: — speech to the convention.
He lists out the crime and the welfare and all of these social issues as if it was contemporary.
This is — this didn’t just start. Michael Vlahos: No, it didn’t, but now it’s
being — Ben Wattenberg: That’s 30 years ago. Michael Vlahos: I agree with you, and it didn’t
just start in 1896 either. That whole industrial transformation had been going on for decades
in the country. If you remember the labor disturbances of 1876, all the depressions
that went on — there were three depressions in the 1890s — it culminates over a period
of time. And what we’re seeing is that people are finally confronting a real watershed in
their lives, and the economic transformation, which we can call globalization, information
revolution, is all bound up in the change in American life. Americans are very uncertain.
They’re looking for a vision of where we go from here. Karlyn Bowman: But then I think — Ben Wattenberg: Let — Stephen Hess: Let’s have the micro picture,
though. Michael Vlahos: Okay, sure. Stephen Hess: We can get too macro about that.
We’ve just gone through an election where the polls, the most recent Washington Post
poll, showed that three out of four Americans couldn’t name their member of Congress,
where two out of three Americans who are eligible to vote didn’t vote — Michael Vlahos: Right. Stephen Hess: Where we have a uniquely unpopular
president, where 25 percent of the people simply detest him and detest him in a way
that’s very interesting. When they detested Ronald Reagan, it was ideological, so there
was a comparable group that loved him. There’s no comparable group here. These are really
very unique situations in which I think we have to be very gentle in looking — Ben Wattenberg: You don’t — Karlyn Bowman: Ben, I think you’re — Ben Wattenberg: Go ahead, Karlyn. Karlyn Bowman: I think you’re right that
issues involving moral disintegration of the society are weighing very heavily on people’s
minds. And if you look back to the ’50s, the last time this happened, Americans were
concerned about our science and technology — could we compete with the Soviets? And
now the overwhelming concern in the polls that I see is about moral fiber. I mean, that has many dimensions. It has economic
dimensions. Are we going to be able to compete with other people in Southeast Asia, for example?
But it also has a great deal to do with the problems we have here at home, the ones that
we are not very confident that government can solve. And that’s a sea change. Ben Wattenberg: Look, Steve, you said that
it was unique — a unique election in part because Clinton was so detested by so many
people. Stephen Hess: Yeah, so to that degree it is
a vote of confidence. I mean — Ben Wattenberg: Well, but wait a minute. Wait
a minute. Stephen Hess: The beloved Tip O’Neill was
not right that all politics is local. Ben Wattenberg: Right, but — Stephen Hess: Neither is all politics national.
But there was an awful lot that had to do with Bill Clinton in this election. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but — Stephen Hess: Bill Clinton isn’t going to
be around forever. Ben Wattenberg: You’re telling me. But the
— but suppose — I mean, isn’t there an ideological component to not liking a politician?
Suppose Clinton had governed as a new Democrat, and he got all the liberals angry. He coalesced
with the Republicans in the center. In other words, he governed the way he ran, as a new
Democrat. I think three-quarters of those who hate him would be hailing him. Michael Vlahos: Well, what if it goes beyond
ideology? I mean, what if the old paradigm, to use a 25-cent word, of government, a bureaucratic,
enlightened state that came out of the Progressive Era — what if that just doesn’t work anymore
and in this period of economic transformation people see that it doesn’t work and they
wouldn’t throw it out? Ben Wattenberg: Would you accept this distinction,
that it is not simply an anti-government vote, but it is an anti-what-government-does vote?
And — Michael Vlahos: And an anti-bureaucratic-state
vote, because the bureaucratic state is collapsing in business. Businesses are not like IBM and
GM used to be — pyramids. They are now adopting a totally different architecture of relationship,
and that’s going into government. And what’s happening in this election is a reflection. Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn? Michael Vlahos: But — Karlyn Bowman: Well, I think Republicans have
to answer the question about whether this was an anti-Washington vote or an anti-government
vote, and I don’t think that that’s clear. For example, if you look at a lot of Republican
governors who were elected, they think government could do many things and they can do it well.
They streamline government. It’s a smaller government generally. Michael Vlahos: Right. Karlyn Bowman: But I think Republicans have
to answer that question about what the mood is about the city of Washington. E. J. Dionne: And Karlyn is right about — in
pointing to the governors. Because if you look at the governors elections, you didn’t
have a lot of incumbents thrown out, with a couple of notable exceptions like Mario
Cuomo. And the range of governors who were reelected — Ben Wattenberg: And Ann Richards. E. J. Dionne: And Ann Richards, yes. Michael Vlahos: Right. E. J. Dionne: But the range of governors reelected,
they tended to be, with a couple of exceptions, quite a moderate lot: Roy — on the Democratic
side, Roy Romer of Colorado, Dean in Vermont. You had people — and then on the Republican
side you had people like Voinovich or Jim Edgar. These are problem-solving governors,
and I think — Stephen Hess: E. J., you didn’t have a lot
of senators thrown out either. You had Sasser and Wofford, two senators, thrown out. In
other words, look what happened there. George Mitchell decided he wanted to be commissioner
of baseball or something else. He would have been reelected. The seat went Republican. E. J. Dionne: Boren might have been — Stephen Hess: Boren wanted to be governor
— wanted to be president of Oklahoma State University. Ben Wattenberg: Boren may run primaries as
— Stephen Hess: Okay, he — Ben Wattenberg: — against Clinton in my
judgment, right. Stephen Hess: He would have won. If Lloyd
Bentsen hadn’t decided he preferred to be secretary of Treasury, he would be in the
Senate. E. J. Dionne: Al Gore. Stephen Hess: Yeah, Al Gore. So, you know,
we could be sitting here today looking at a situation in which there’s a perfectly
logical — E. J. Dionne: Yeah, but, Steve — Michael Vlahos: But this is part of what happens
in Washington a lot, and this is one of the things you saw before the election. People
thought — and I looked at the last Cuomo push, for example. It was a whole hour, and
they thought that having all sorts of famous actors endorsing him, trying to really manipulate
and control people from the old standpoint of this ruling elite in Washington knowing
how to control elections, and it blew apart this time. Stephen Hess: Can’t you just conclude that
somebody after being in office for 12 years is worn out, that it wasn’t a massive question
of industrialization, but just that the people of New York were tired of Mario? Michael Vlahos: Well, I’m sure people in
the 1890s were — Ben Wattenberg: Steve, when all the dominos
or almost all the dominoes — you point to specific things, you know, Cuomo was 12 years
and — Stephen Hess: Yeah, that’s how politics
is. It’s a lot of little pieces we put together and make — Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but you could put a
lot of little pieces on the other side, but when all the dominoes, or almost all the dominoes,
fall in the same direction, particularly in those open seats, where there’s no incumbency
advantage, and they all go roughly the same way — E. J. Dionne: Absolutely. Ben Wattenberg: I would say, you know, you’d
better start talking realignment. This is big-time stuff, particularly when you have
that lurking values issue that the Democrats had a shot at and Clinton blew it. Stephen Hess: But you started off by saying
that the Republicans are saying what Barry Goldwater said. All you did is have a party
that takes a majority. E. J. Dionne: But I think we — Stephen Hess: That’s not realignment. That’s
the party has been successful in basically what it stands for. It is a conservative party. E. J. Dionne: I also think one of the things
we’re going to have to look at more closely over time is what was the nature of the turnout
in this election. See, I think that Clinton and the Democrats have a very large internal
problem, that they got beat because they couldn’t come together around a coherent program of
government. And I think voters were angry about that independent of their ideological
position, although there is certainly some ideological component to it. And then Clinton’s problem in terms of his
unpopularity is that, if you think of the group that’s benefited most from the recovery,
they are by and large better-off people because they were in a better position to benefit
from the recovery. They didn’t like Clinton because he raised their taxes, or they were
Republicans. The people who would have been the natural Democrats — and I think many
of them didn’t vote — were the people who haven’t felt the recovery yet. So this
side is disappointed, and the other side doesn’t like Clinton’s policies. Ben Wattenberg: Speaking of this side, this
side of this panel is the technocratic side, all right? They say, “Well, there was all
these little” — E. J. Dionne: I would never have said that
— Ben Wattenberg: — “these little Rube Goldberg
machines, and it didn’t quite work. We didn’t quite get turned out.” And we some — E. J. Dionne: Oh, no, I don’t think it’d
be a Rube Goldberg — Ben Wattenberg: — ideologues over here. E. J. Dionne: No, no, no. I don’t think
it’s a Rube Goldberg problem. I don’t think this is, you know, pulling a few levers.
I think this is really a matter, a deep matter, of how can Democrats govern the country. Can — new Democrats have said you’ve got
to restructure the government; you’ve got to do a bunch of things differently. So-called
old Democrats have said we’ve got to solve some problems and use government. Clinton
promised a synthesis, which was, we’re going to reform government — that’s the new
Democrat side — and we’re going to use it — that’s the old Democrat side. And
it didn’t — Ben Wattenberg: Hold on. I want to hear from
some of the ideologues here. Karlyn? E. J. Dionne: Could I defend myself, though? Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn, was this election
a rise of conservatism, sort of round two of the Reagan revolution? Karlyn Bowman: I think we’ve seen a rolling
realignment, and I think the country is becoming more conservative over time, and — though
you don’t see that in the straight ideology numbers, but certainly you see that, I think,
in the election that we had last week. Michael Vlahos: It’s a different kind of
conservatism, though. It’s not fiscal conservatism. It’s not “let’s be 20 percent less than
the Democrats.” It’s not “let’s be 20 percent less than FDR.” It’s a different
kind of vision. You talked about governors. It’s because
people want to see power devolve to more local arenas. And when you look at realignments
in the past, at the time it occurs, it never seems as obvious as it does in retrospect. And basically, if you look at — you saw
the Times-Mirror survey, for example. You have different groups and constellation of
voters moving away from their former affiliations. The fact that Clinton was such a manifest
failure in his promise to keep the old coalition together is a sign of how far things have
gone. You have a whole group of Perotistas basically who are right there to be grabbed
by the Republicans. You have a divide that isn’t simply a divide of ideology; it’s
a divide of whether you look backward to the bureaucratic state or forward to a different
concept of American life. Ben Wattenberg: All right. E. J. Dionne: Can I — Ben Wattenberg: Wait a minute. Hold it. I
— Stephen Hess: I was writing that speech, though,
for Eisenhower, though. I mean, really, seriously. [Laughter.] Seriously. Ben Wattenberg: What did you say, Steve? Stephen Hess: I say I was writing that speech
for Eisenhower. Michael Vlahos: Oh, you still don’t get
it. [Laughter.] Stephen Hess: Let me say, is it not true that
in the South at least, as E. J. started our discussion, this is a continuation, the completion,
of a post — E. J. Dionne: It started in ’48. Stephen Hess: Certainly in ’52 when Eisenhower
took Texas and Florida and Virginia. E. J. Dionne: Virginia. Stephen Hess: So we had it at the presidential
level. Then it moved to the gubernatorial and senatorial. Now it’s at the House level. Ben Wattenberg: I should point out to our
audience that — Stephen Hess: We have completed — Ben Wattenberg: Stephen has — Stephen Hess: Yeah. Ben Wattenberg: Although he’s a man young
— short in tooth, a young man, started working in the Eisenhower administration. Stephen Hess: Yeah. Ben Wattenberg: He was three at that time.
But — and then you worked in the Nixon administration. Stephen Hess: Yeah. Michael Vlahos: Your micro-interpretation
is very persuasive at the micro level, but you have to understand, I would hope, that
there are these periods when things shift and break in America. Stephen Hess: Absolutely. But, Michael, I
— Michael Vlahos: And to deny that that’s
happening — Stephen Hess: No, no, no. Predictions — I
predict that tomorrow will be like today on realignments, which means that I’m only
wrong once every 40 years. Michael Vlahos: Right. Stephen Hess: I may be wrong now. Michael Vlahos: Okay. Stephen Hess: But the odds at least are with
me. Michael Vlahos: You see, the — E. J. Dionne: Could I throw one more element
into the pot? Michael Vlahos: Go ahead. Sure. E. J. Dionne: This is about a voter who realigned
in this election. I was on the phone with one of my oldest friends, a historic Democrat
who voted straight Republican on Tuesday, and he said he walked into his polling place
and he saw a lot of people hang around, mostly guys, he said — mostly middle-aged guys
— and he said these were people with kids. They were worried about bringing up their
families. They thought it’s their responsibility to do that. And he thinks a lot of these people
voted Republican simply as an expression of their deep belief that a certain kind of personal
responsibility should rule and that the government isn’t going to solve the problem that’s
in their heads. I think that — Michael Vlahos: You just hit it. Personal
responsibility is the — E. J. Dionne: I think that that — Stephen Hess: Did he move to the suburbs? E. J. Dionne: Well, yes. And exactly right. Michael Vlahos: No, wait. He said different. E. J. Dionne: I pointed out to him these were
people who didn’t need government at all — Michael Vlahos: This is a really important
point, though. E. J. Dionne: And that that’s the issue. Michael Vlahos: This is a really important
point. E. J. Dionne: That’s exactly right. Michael Vlahos: That’s the watchword of
the future, is individual — Karlyn Bowman: But government isn’t even
helping those people who need it, and I think that’s one of the most serious problems.
And that’s what part of this election was about. It’s not helping people who need
it. And people want to see responsibilities devolve to the states and local areas where
more can be done. New federalism may be back — Richard Nixon — long after his — Michael Vlahos: Yeah, individual responsibility
is really the watchword. Ben Wattenberg: Now, wait a minute. Hold it.
Let me just turn to something else. Who is going to be the next president and why? Karlyn,
you can tell us that, I know that. Karlyn Bowman: I wish I knew the answer. I
don’t know the answer to that question. Ben Wattenberg: How many party — how many
people are going to be running? Karlyn Bowman: Oh, I think you could see a
couple of independent candidacies. I think you could see Clinton challenged from both
the right and the left of his party. Ben Wattenberg: Who would challenge from the
right and the left? Karlyn Bowman: Casey in Pennsylvania. There’s
been some talk about that, that he might challenge from the right. Ben Wattenberg: Uh-huh. Karlyn Bowman: Jesse Jackson could run as
an independent. There’s been some suggestion that David Boren could run as independent.
Colin Powell — no one knows yet whether he’s a Republican or a Democrat. Ben Wattenberg: Bob Kerrey, we hear, might
challenge Clinton. Karlyn Bowman: Possibly. And the Republicans
have obviously a very large group, and it’s hard to — for me to see who wins. Michael Vlahos: Yeah, the Republicans have
two years to put together a vision, and whoever best offers that vision most forcefully and
most authentically will be the nominee. Ben Wattenberg: Is the — Michael Vlahos: No, no — Karlyn Bowman: I’d like to believe that
but — Ben Wattenberg: Go ahead. Michael Vlahos: No — Karlyn Bowman: I said I’d like to believe
that, but I think that who has a lot of money at the beginning of this process because the
primary process — Michael Vlahos: Hey, we all know that, but
let me finish on this though. Ben Wattenberg: Is the Contract for America
a vision? Michael Vlahos: The Contract for America is
something that was kind of a groundwork and a first step, but I think you’ve got to
go a lot farther than that. You’ve got to talk about what’s really happening to America.
But on the Democrat side, if Clinton moves to the new Democrat to outflank the Republicans,
you’re going to see a third-party candidacy probably, and you’re going to see — Ben Wattenberg: By Jesse Jackson — Michael Vlahos: The Democrats split up. Ben Wattenberg: Right. Michael Vlahos: So that’s a real interesting
prospect for the next election. E. J. Dionne: First of all, I think Clinton
could still be the next president. Karlyn Bowman: Yes. E. J. Dionne: I think we are in such a strange
and volatile mood that I do not think we should rule that out as of now. Michael Vlahos: No, no, absolutely not. E. J. Dionne: But I think the — on the Republican
side, a lot of people are going to end up looking at these governors, because I think
it’s very important to see this election as a reaction against Democrats in Washington,
but not against incumbents in the statehouses with those couple of exceptions, and that
somebody like Lamar Alexander is out there, I think, talking in very interesting terms
about how do you assemble a new Republican program. In fact, he’s gone back to the
Progressive Era, too, and is talking about Herbert Crowley — Karlyn Bowman: Absolutely. E. J. Dionne: And what does a new Republican
program look like? I think that’s very interesting. Karlyn Bowman: E. J., is it possible that
those Republicans could run as favorite sons? Stephen Hess: Well, yeah, I would say that
Clinton — Ben Wattenberg: Hold on. Let’s get Karlyn’s
question. We’ll come to you. Karlyn Bowman: My question to E. J. is: Could
these Republican governors run as favorite sons? Because the primary process is over
so early this time, about 60 — what? Sixty-five percent of the delegates are selected by March? Stephen Hess: You won’t find that anymore.
That was the way it used to be — Karlyn Bowman: They just won’t buy it? Stephen Hess: Before 1952. That’s — E. J. Dionne: I think that’s very hard. Stephen Hess: It’s interesting, but it’s
not going to — Karlyn Bowman: But could they agree to think
about it as a group and — E. J. Dionne: But you could have — Karlyn Bowman: It’s — I mean, it’s just
an interesting idea. E. J. Dionne: It’s an interesting question
in the sense that they wouldn’t be favorite sons in the old sense, but Pete Wilson could
well carry California. Bill Weld could well carry Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Karlyn Bowman: Exactly. Christy Whitman. E. J. Dionne: So you would have the effect
of favorite sons without real favorite sons. Ben Wattenberg: What about some of those Midwestern
governors who are so popular? I mean — E. J. Dionne: Engler, Thompson — Karlyn Bowman: Thompson. Ben Wattenberg: Engler, Thompson. Stephen Hess: Yeah, they’re all good — Karlyn Bowman: Edgar. Stephen Hess: — vice presidential candidates. Michael Vlahos: Yeah, you’ve got — Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, and therefore, couldn’t
they say to their voters, “Look, you know, let me represent you out there; just — I’m
only running in this state. There are so many votes — so many, you know, convention votes
here. Don’t vote for any of those guys; vote for me.” And have a real convention? Stephen Hess: I would argue that, if Colin
Powell turns out to be a Republican, he’ll be the Republican nominee. And it’s not
a vision where we’re looking for, but it’s a leader. We haven’t got two years for vision. Michael Vlahos: They go together — Stephen Hess: I would say that — Michael Vlahos: Every time in America. Stephen Hess: Bill Clinton, although he’s
likely to get the nomination, is also a possibility to be the first incumbent president since
Chester Arthur in 1884 to be denied the nomination. So want to play games? We can play it either
way. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Let’s — we
started with E. J. on a sort of round robin. Let us try that again as we close this discussion.
What do you distill from this conversation that you agree upon and disagree upon as a
panel here? What would — how would you — E. J. Dionne: I think — Ben Wattenberg: Sum up what we have just heard? E. J. Dionne: I think we agree that these
elections were a big, big, big deal, and we don’t quite agree on what that deal means.
I think that there is a sense that something is roiling the country out there. I think
everybody agrees on that. Ben Wattenberg: Values, E. J. E. J. Dionne: Yeah, I knew you’d say that. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, I know you knew — E. J. Dionne: And I think values is part of
it. I think the kind of economic change we’re going through is part of it and affects the
values. I think where we disagree is about how clear
the direction of this change is. My own view is that we’re in the middle of it, and we’re
not — it’s not clear, at least to me, what direction this change is going to take. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Steve? Stephen Hess: Well, I certainly think in the
short run, the next two years, that the president, blocked in terms of a legislative program,
is going to be ironically the foreign policy president and there invent government president. Michael Vlahos: Yes, absolutely right. Stephen Hess: And that otherwise we’ll go
into the 1996 election looking for vision on both sides. The vision that E. J. suggests
for Clinton sort of coming down the middle I think is much too subtle and nuanced. Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn, how do you distill
what we have learned this morning? Karlyn Bowman: I agree with the agreement
that we’ve just discussed thus far, but I think that the contract is a vision, albeit
an imperfect one. And there is some ground for Republicans to try to change things in
this city. But it’s a very imperfect vision at this point. Michael Vlahos: This was the last hurrah of
the progressive movement, and a historical era is finally over in American politics that
was protracted far too long. And whether or not you see the Republicans rise with a new
vision that carries them forward for 35 years of dominance or not, you’re still at the
end of an old era and the beginning of a new one. Ben Wattenberg: I agree we are at the end
of an era, which as Karlyn knows I’ve been saying for — what? How long? Fifteen years
that you’ve known me. Michael Vlahos: You’ve finally — [Laughter.] E. J. Dionne: You’re always in the middle
of a transition period. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Thank you, Stephen
Hess, Karlyn Bowman, E. J. Dionne, and Michael Vlahos. And thank you. We enjoy hearing from our audience. Please continue to send your 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.

Republicans spent years doing nothing to secure elections


Special Counsel Robert Mueller may not have found that President Trump colluded with the Russians according to Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress. But he did find that Russia interfered in the 2016 election both through ”a disinformation and social media” campaign “designed to sow discord” and by hacking the emails of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party. These findings are not new. The U.S. intelligence apparatus concluded the same — years ago. It should be clear to everyone that Russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 presidential election process. Yet, for over two years, some Republicans didn’t take these findings seriously. We mistake our response if we think it’s about accountability from the Russians. They’re another country; they’re going to spy on us, they do spy on us. They’re going to interfere with our elections. We also do the same. When I take look a look as a Chairman of Homeland Security, the threats that face this nation, I’m concerned about other things, that would be lower on the list. And even those Republicans who did take election security seriously, did little about it. Obviously, any foreign breach of our cyber security measures is disturbing and I strongly condemn any such efforts. Behind closed doors, the FBI began investigating Russian interference into the election in July 2016, according to former director James Comey. Then there were news reports about states seeing their voter registration databases hacked. In August, then-Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to the FBI urging the bureau to investigate Russian interference — the first public reference. According to then-Vice President Joe Biden, McConnell refused to issue a bipartisan statement condemning Russia’s actions ahead of the election. Other than that, the public knew little before voting. So help me god. Then Trump became president and the Republicans held on to House and the Senate. And we started to learn more about what had happened in 2016. Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections? No doubt. Facebook admitting they were paid more than $100,000 by Russian companies during the election. 13 Russians and three Russian companies interfered online and in-person in the 2016 election. Fast forward to March of 2018 — 16 months after the election. Congress finally allocated funds — $380 million to be exact — to improve election security. It was the first big federal action since 2016. It was a downpayment on an improvement to the election security infrastructure across the country. The $380 million was simply not enough and we need the federal government to pay their share of ensuring that our election systems are more secure across the country. Vote yes on this amendment for your country! Four months later, House Republicans voted down a Democratic bill to increase that funding. It is now very, very clear that we have a threat that we have not done enough Outside of the $380 million that congress gave to the states to improve election security they’ve done little else in response to the Russian efforts to interfere with our election system, which is troubling. A member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Ron Wyden has been pushing legislation to keep electronic voting machines safe from hackers. We still don’t have the basic reforms that are necessary for 2020. I want to be clear, the bottom line has got to be hand marked paper ballots and risk limiting audits. After years of inaction on election security, Republicans are celebrating Barr’s memo. The Mueller report was great. It said no obstruction. No collusion. It could not have been better. And some are even re-upping the need to secure our elections. With another election right around the corner, it’s still not clear whether the Republican leadership in Congress will pair that rhetoric with action. If citizens go out there and say look, we can protect American democracy. What is more sacred than our franchise?

Bernie IS Biden’s BIGGEST Threat


>>Bernie Sanders has not only been rising
in the polls, but if you look at some of the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire,
he is performing incredibly well. In fact, he’s tied with Biden in some of these
polls. Now, the establishment-minded folks, first,
pretended like they were ignoring Bernie, didn’t take him seriously. But now considering the fact that he’s outraised
all of his opponents in the Democratic side, obviously, and he has the most small dollar
donors than anyone else on the Democratic side. Establishment Democrats are starting to panic
and that is noted in various pieces, but I’m gonna focus on the Associated Press and Politico. Now the Associated Press reported, establish
reminded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist
would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier
house, Senate and governors’ races. Less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses,
the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously. So they obviously should have taken him seriously
from day one, they should have taken him seriously since the 2016 election when he was able to
close this massive gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. He was an unknown politician from Vermont. But it was his policies, it was his vision
that inspired voters to rethink what could be in this country, right? And so if they don’t want to take him seriously
that’s on them. But what I’m more concerned about is now that
they do take him seriously what kind of games are they gonna play to try to crush him? And he’s been incredibly resilient so far. I have a lot of faith in him. However, I also know that the corporate arm
of the Democratic Party is rather vicious and will stop at nothing to smear someone.>>The frustrating thing, we’ve seen over
the past couple weeks all these articles where they look at as polling, and they say, my
god, he’s actually, he’s performing pretty well. They look at the general election polling
showing him doing well, especially in some of the states that Hillary Clinton lost against
head to head against Donald Trump. You can’t look at his fundraising and not
be impressed by that. But they’ve only moved so far they’ve moved
far enough to, hey, Joe Biden or whoever’s that’s more, in their lane, you need to be
worried about this, but not to. And maybe that means something. Maybe the fact that Sanders is doing so well
actually represents something about the potential Democratic voters in a general election. Maybe it says something about, man, if we
really wanna beat Trump, maybe this is the guy to get behind.>>Yeah.>>They can acknowledge all these factors,
but they can’t acknowledge what it represents, all they can see is that it’s an obstacle
to Joe Biden.>>Absolutely, look, they recognize that there
is something that really resonates with Democratic voters and independent voters by the way. The only problem is what he represents conflicts
with what their donors want. And I think that’s the main reason why they
push back against him so aggressively. Every argument that you’ve heard from establishment
Democrats against Bernie Sanders is easily debunkable, right? And oftentimes doesn’t even make any sense. Their argument is, he’s so to the left that
he would have no chance in the general even though after the 2016 election, polling indicated
that he was the most popular politician in the country, okay? And there are Trump supporters who said they
would’ve voted for Bernie Sanders. So they ran Hillary Clinton. She lost to Donald Trump. What makes them think that this time around
someone who is arguably worse than Hillary Clinton, I mean, look at Joe Biden and hit
not only his record, but what he’s running on today. What he’s running on today is, I’m doing nothing
for you. I’m not gonna change anything. Right, anyone who dares to question him about
that, he responds in a combative angry way.>>Yeah, that you like your corn pop, won’t
come down, Joe.>>Right, exactly. And so what makes them think that he’s a more
viable candidate as opposed to Bernie Sanders. The truth is they don’t even believe that,
what they got they need to appease their donors. And that’s really at the heart of this. So let me give you more. And it goes beyond donors as well. I mean, they’re thinking about their own careers,
their own ambitions, and are they likely to get positions in Bernie Sanders administration?>>Change the tune fast, maybe.>>Let me just tell you, Neera Tanden is not
gonna be in Bernie Sanders administration. And she’s still real salty that Hillary Clinton
lost because she lost out on a cushy job in the White House, which is a great thing. So let’s move on to some of the specific statements,
okay. Phil Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel jumped in
on this and said, you need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters
and about battleground states. The degree of difficulty dramatically increases
under Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.>>No specifics, how? Why does it get harder? If he is able to outraise all of the other
Democrats, all the other Democrats with small dollar donations? He has more individual donors. He’s not funded by super PACs. He doesn’t average donation is $18. He’s outraise every single one of them. So what makes you think that he doesn’t have
a shot at beating Trump?>>They don’t have to say, unfortunately. I think it was the Washington Post. Everybody’s passing around that, I’m a Republican
and I think Democrats should give me someone I’m comfortable voting for, that op-ed that
just came out, and a lot of people read that headline. They’re like, who is that for? It’s around the manual. It’s for someone who actually still believes
that that strategy would work. Yes, to get swing voters you need a centrist,
like Hillary Clinton because it worked. It worked really well in 2016
>>Yeah, it’s ridiculous. No one believes this. No one believes the arguments that they’re
made>>By the way, and he worked for Obama. Obama was the guy who was trying to present
himself as far more left than he was. And Obama won in states that Hillary was incapable
of. So even on his face, even if he believes that
secretly you should campaign as a leftist, but then actually rule as a centrist. He can’t pretend that he doesn’t understand
the appeal of running a left campaign. Because he’s seen it work in practice.>>100%, exactly. I mean, Obama certainly presented himself
as a bold progressive. Now part of the problem was he didn’t have
much of a record as a Senator. The people could refer to see if he was telling
the truth. And look, 2008 was very different. People were desperate to get rid of Bush and
Bush era like policies. And so John McCain wasn’t a likable candidate
at that time and people took a chance and really believed Obama’s messaging. But now, I just think the electorate is different
and they’re looking for records, they’re looking for evidence, they’re looking for receipts,
and they want detailed policies.>>Yeah.>>So let me give you more. I’m gonna skip ahead and talk a little bit
about what these Sanders critics originally thought with Elizabeth Warren in the race. And I love this part of the story because
it was exactly what we predicted, right? Cenk and I talked about this a lot on the
show. Several Sander’s critics noted that he has
largely escaped intense scrutiny throughout the campaign. We all know that’s untrue. In part, because some assumed that Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren, another progressive Firebrand, was a stronger candidate who would
cannibalize his support. With Warren’s candidacy struggling to maintain
momentum, however, those assumptions are now being questioned. So they were really relying on Elizabeth Warren
to destroy any chance of Bernie Sanders becoming the nominee. But that didn’t work because unfortunately
Elizabeth Warren, kind of back pedaled on some of her progressive policy proposals,
specifically Medicare for all, I think that really tanked her campaign. So maybe don’t listen to the centrist advising
you and your campaign because I think the party, meaning the voters, have moved to the
left.>>Yeah, and I don’t think they predicted,
first of all, how many people would be in the primary. But of those people, how that would then shake
out in terms of who’s taking who’s support. It’s pretty easy to show that there’s at least
some overlap between Warren and Sanders. But there’s definitely overlap between Biden
and some of these other candidates, Buttigieg and things like that. And probably a little bit Warren, too. If she does back off some of the bigger, bolder,
progressive plans, then she’s not gonna lose the more centrist of her supporters, she’s
gonna drop some people that may go back to Bernie. But she’ll still hold on to the people who
are probably more likely to vote for Biden if she weren’t there.>>Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I think that’s what happened already.>>Yeah.>>To some extent.>>And really fast.>>Yeah.>>I will say, this sort of candidate arithmetic
is very difficult to do. If you actually look at who second choice
is. One of the most mind-blowing things that’s
been consistent throughout the last year is that generally, like Bernie Sanders and Joe
Biden, people generally think of the other candidate as their second choice. I know it doesn’t make any sense to people
who pay attention hardcore to the news, but a lot of people who like Joe Biden also kind
of like Bernie Sanders and vice versa.>>Yeah, it is kind of incredible.>>It’s weird. Just take it up with the polls.>>There was this conversation that I heard
on Michael Brooks’ show, this is months and months ago. But it was such a good point that I think
we often forget, especially as people who work in the news and we eat this stuff up
every day. Look, most Americans who aren’t like hyper
aware and paying like super close attention to politics and everything that’s happening. If you give them a survey on various political
issues, it’s really like a hodgepodge of all sorts of different things that are inconsistent,
right? And so you can’t think that all voters are
consistent on all issues. People have different life experiences, different
preferences, different worldviews. And so, I mean, look, it might not make a
lot of sense to us, but people have different opinions on various policies, so I could see
how someone might like Bernie Sanders and then also later support Biden, vice versa. I don’t get it, but-
>>Yeah.>>People are not necessarily super consistent
on the issues. And I wanted to read a quick comment from
our member’s section. Lib says, it’s class warfare, period. I think you’re commenting in regard to this
story and I think you’re right, right? This is about an economic message that resonates
across party lines. That’s the thing about Bernie Sanders that
I think is incredibly powerful. He talks about how this economy is rigged. He talks about the frustrations and the anxieties
of Americans. And we feel it. We feel it every day, even if you have a stable
job and you’re not too worried about where you’re gonna end up at the moment. We see it around us. We see people living on the streets and increase
number of homeless people. We see people who are dying. Hundreds of thousands of people have already
died as a result of the opioid epidemic. Even in my neighborhood, I see people shooting
up heroin. And the homelessness problem is series like
we see poverty all around us and those economic anxieties are real. And while the Robin manuals of the world are
not worried about those things because there are, sitting up on their ivory towers and
they’re not concerned about all this stuff. The vast majority of Americans are and when
they hear a politician in a very intelligent and digestible way explain what’s happening
economically to them and how we can fix it. It’s powerful. It’s much more powerful than Biden getting
angry because someone’s asking him a hard question that he doesn’t like.

Bernie Sanders calls out Trump on Trade


And Mr. Trump has been going all over Ohio, he’s
been going all over America saying I’m Mr. Trump, I’m really concerned about outsourcing. But what the people of Ohio and America should
know is that this great concern of his about outsourcing apparently does not apply to the
companies that he owns. Mr. Trump today is employing people in Bangladesh
at 33 cents an hour. (Boos from audience) Mr. Trump is manufacturing
his clothing lines in Mexico and in China and building his furniture line in Turkey. So I say to Mr. Trump: it’s easy to talk the
talk, start walking the walk. If you are concerned about outsourcing, bring
those jobs back to America. (Crowd cheers)

Romney’s Sorry Sunday


Mitt Romney has had a tough week trying to
explain secretly recorded remarks he made at a fundraiser last May, in which he said forty seven percent of
americans don’t pay federal income taxes and think of themselves as victims.
They see themselves as victims. He now says that he’s really for the hundred percent in
America, is anybody going to buy that given that dim vision of half the country?
He seemed to write off, he didn’t say well these are people who are in hard times but they
want to get out of our times, he was basically saying they’re forty seven percent, they’re victims,
they feel entitled and they’re never going to vote for me anyway so i’m not
going to worry about them. if your quote “dependent on government” which includes
senior citizens getting medicare and the like, well then I
can’t really now expect your vote, it just, it was a blow.
People seeing themselves as victims and dependent on the government and all that,
it’s not true and therefore very unfortunate. One strategist who’s
been involved in a lot of these campaigns said when he saw that video it was the
first time he thought he was seeing the real Romney that’s a problem in your most uh…
troubled moment is the one people think is the most authentic moment.
This is a man who has said a lot of things that cause voters out there to go woah, he doesn’t get me at all including the forty seven percent.
This is a defining moment in the campaign who’s the real Mitt Romney? The one who said that he didn’t have
to worry about forty seven percent of the people, or the one who told us at
a Univision meeting that he wanted to be the president for
one hundred percent of americans? The problem is that back in
february if you remember in an interview with CNN, he also said that he was not
concerned about the very poor, so honestly as a journalist he has
to get out of that box. He offered political analysis but policy analysis
on forty seven percent of this country including a lot of republican voters people who receive entitlements through
social security and medicare that they paid into he’s talking about this group of people will not take
personal responsibility, it betrayed a lack of understanding of how the government
works, how america works, the american work ethic. Do you think he needs to go
beyond saying that this was inelegant, to saying that he was flat wrong?

The answer is participation


I was reminded why I was interested in
politics in the first place. I studied politics for a long time and there’s
this huge gap between what politics should be and how people perceive
politicians. And I think one reason for that is there are politicians who make
decisions to get elected. And there are politicians who say “where are my voters?”
“where are my potential voters?” “what decisions do I need to make in order to
win?” and that’s completely backwards. It should be: here are the things that I
care about and I want to win to ensure that the things that I care about are
implemented, and winning is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Our job fundamentally is a difficult one in Ottawa, which is not to serve one
constituency, not to serve one riding, not to serve one base, as it were, but to
ensure that we are making decisions in the best interests of all Canadians at
all times. I’m happy to be the Liberal candidate in next year’s election to
seek another term. I’m very proud of a lot of the work that we’ve done.
I will say I don’t think the choice could be starker for our country as we head into 2019,
and as we’ve seen what’s happened in the province of Ontario, and for that
I think not only is the answer participation, but it’s not just the people who are here tonight.
We have to ensure that our neighbours, and and our friends,
and everyone gets involved and gets out and votes and participates to make sure
that we have another Liberal government after 2019.

Election Year Blues | Politics Are Not Funny | Pillow Talk TV


Guess what 2020 means? F*ck the past. A new decade.
All sins are forgiven! Language. 2020 is an election year. Shut your mouth… I mean. That means that… I know what that means. It is the worst possible thing ever. Everything is ruined now. Why so blue? Because it’s a goddamn motherf*cking
election year. Language. Incessant ads. Garbage candidates. Empty promises.
Friends turning on one another. And let’s not forget, a complete lack a moral decency. All of that is true. We mustn’t forget Trump. Language! I’m sorry. Just 2020 was supposed to be so special
and now everything is ruined. Science? I am not in the mood. Science dance? I said I’m not in the mood. An election year is a time of hope, a time of… Alright, let’s shift gears. An election year is a time of depression and agony. We as Americans are forced to pick sides. Turn on friends and family. All in the
name of the evil demon called democracy. Yes! You get me. How does one avoid losing all respect for family who vote for “that” candidate? It’s impossible. How does one shield themselves
from the onslaught of media? We must destroy our computers and our
televisions. Too soon. We must make smarter choices and avoid click bait. Exactly! We must stop engaging in social media arguments that end in deleted and
blocked profiles and shattered egos. Some of that is okay. Down with profiteering.
Let’s end big government. Wait! Wait wait wait wait wait.
Who’s show is this? What is going on here? You will not destroy 2020, ok! 420 is an entire month goddamnit. You’re ruining everything! Nobody’s ruining anything! You are! This is my show now. I win the election. Ow. Ow. In 2020, every 4:20 will be a mandatory smoke break. I’ve lost control. And the whole month of April will be forced vacation. She no longer respects my opinions. Tuesday nights, all men will have to cook dinner. Tacos. And Wednesday will forever be changed… Are you done? If I am elected host of the science show, Dan will forever do the experiments, And I will be the one laughing! Ha ha ha! I quit. I quit. Science! Pose.