Midterm Elections 2018

[Tom B.]

Well, the necessary denials are out. So I am on-board with the forum consensus that the book (and now the op-ed) won't move the needle on the R side of things. I still think the book + op-ed power combo could motivate turnout on the D side of things, though. (If a D voter sees the denials, they'll just think Kelly and Mattis are CYA'ing but their true feelings are what is in Woodward's book and represented by what is in the NYT op-ed.)

Just now catching up with this thread after several days away.

Something about Mattis' denial has intrigued me. If you read it closely, he only denies the "contemptuous words" that Woodward attributed to him. That's interesting because the phrase "contemptuous words" has a specific meaning under the UCMJ, and that meaning has limits. Notably, it doesn't prohibit criticism, disagreement, or differences of opinion, even if they're expressed strongly:

If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged.

Source: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/pu...e-ucmj-3356854

This is something Mattis and his deputies would know, and something that Trump likely wouldn't know because, well, let's just say he doesn't come across as an "attention to detail" kind of guy.

Now, of all the statements attributed to Mattis in Woodward's book (that we know about so far), the only one that could even arguably be deemed "contemptuous" was his alleged comment that Trump had the intelligence of a "fifth or sixth grader." Other statements that have been attributed to Mattis -- e.g., the instance in which he allegedly said "We're not going to do any of that" to a staffer after Trump said he wanted to assassinate Bashar al-Assad -- likely wouldn't be considered "contemptuous words."

So, Mattis' "denial" could be his way of saying, "I didn't say the 'fifth or sixth grader' crack, but as for the rest of it...yeah, that's all true."

Also noteworthy that Kelly only denies calling Trump an "idiot," but there's a bunch of other statements (many rather unflattering to Trump) that Woodward attributes to Kelly, and Kelly's denial is conspicuously silent about those.

[camion]

Just now catching up with this thread after several days away.

Something about Mattis' denial has intrigued me. If you read it closely, he only denies the "contemptuous words" that Woodward attributed to him. That's interesting because the phrase "contemptuous words" has a specific meaning under the UCMJ, and that meaning has limits. Notably, it doesn't prohibit criticism, disagreement, or differences of opinion, even if they're expressed strongly:



Source: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/pu...e-ucmj-3356854

This is something Mattis and his deputies would know, and something that Trump likely wouldn't know because, well, let's just say he doesn't come across as an "attention to detail" kind of guy.

Now, of all the statements attributed to Mattis in Woodward's book (that we know about so far), the only one that could even arguably be deemed "contemptuous" was his alleged comment that Trump had the intelligence of a "fifth or sixth grader." Other statements that have been attributed to Mattis -- e.g., the instance in which he allegedly said "We're not going to do any of that" to a staffer after Trump said he wanted to assassinate Bashar al-Assad -- likely wouldn't be considered "contemptuous words."

So, Mattis' "denial" could be his way of saying, "I didn't say the 'fifth or sixth grader' crack, but as for the rest of it...yeah, that's all true."

Also noteworthy that Kelly only denies calling Trump an "idiot," but there's a bunch of other statements (many rather unflattering to Trump) that Woodward attributes to Kelly, and Kelly's denial is conspicuously silent about those.

Many fifth and sixth graders are very intelligent so I don't see how that would be contemptuous. Other comparisons of a 70 year old to grade school kids might be contemptuous.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I don't know anything about her politics, but a cinnamon-raisin bagel with lox and a schmear is the sign of an unstable mind. Almost as bad as eating a slice of N.Y. 'pie with a knife and fork.

{shudder}


(All kidding aside, thanks for the info.)

I'm with you - my apartment and my polling location are a few hundred yards from Zabar's (the scene of her crime) and many of us were horrified by her error in judgement. Shame on the counter guy who even was willing to make that for her. And the fact that she had the chutzpah to take that long to order a customized bagel sandwich at Zabar's - she's lucky she didn't get beaten over the head with a marble rye.

Though I'm not sure which is worse - that or Cuomo rushing to open the bridge he named after his father (and that everyone else will continue to call the Tappan Zee) in order to get a good photo op before the primary, ignoring the fact that it wasn't really safe to open the bridge yet...

[OldPhiKap]

I'm with you - my apartment and my polling location are a few hundred yards from Zabar's (the scene of her crime) and many of us were horrified by her error in judgement. Shame on the counter guy who even was willing to make that for her. And the fact that she had the chutzpah to take that long to order a customized bagel sandwich at Zabar's - she's lucky she didn't get beaten over the head with a marble rye.

Though I'm not sure which is worse - that or Cuomo rushing to open the bridge he named after his father (and that everyone else will continue to call the Tappan Zee) in order to get a good photo op before the primary, ignoring the fact that it wasn't really safe to open the bridge yet...

I didn't realize they renamed the Tappan Zee. Does that mean TappanZeeDevil needs to change his/her name to "CuomoDevil?"

Sheesh. Next thing you'll tell me, Sleepy Hollow has been subsumed by Tarrytown.

(BTW, the WSJ had a front-page article making fun of Bagelgate. Made me chuckle, as only the WSJ can).

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I didn't realize they renamed the Tappan Zee. Does that mean TappanZeeDevil needs to change his/her name to "CuomoDevil?"

Sheesh. Next thing you'll tell me, Sleepy Hollow has been subsumed by Tarrytown.

(BTW, the WSJ had a front-page article making fun of Bagelgate. Made me chuckle, as only the WSJ can).

Yup. The new Tappan Zee was named after Cuomo, though I think most people will keep calling it the Tappan Zee. See the attached article for more details on the events surrounding the opening of the second span of the new bridge.

https://abc7ny.com/traffic/mario-cuo...versy/4212394/

A few years ago NY went through a flurry of name changes that generally haven't stuck. The Triboro is now the RFK, the 59th St./Queensboro Bridge (it already had two names) was renamed for Ed Koch, and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel was named after Hugh Carey. I think part of the West Side Highway is named after Joe DiMaggio but I'm not sure where.

[OldPhiKap]

Yup. The new Tappan Zee was named after Cuomo, though I think most people will keep calling it the Tappan Zee. See the attached article for more details on the events surrounding the opening of the second span of the new bridge.

https://abc7ny.com/traffic/mario-cuo...versy/4212394/

A few years ago NY went through a flurry of name changes that generally haven't stuck. The Triboro is now the RFK, the 59th St./Queensboro Bridge (it already had two names) was renamed for Ed Koch, and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel was named after Hugh Carey. I think part of the West Side Highway is named after Joe DiMaggio but I'm not sure where.

I've been gone too long.

(Whether that's a good thing or not depends on the season, I guess)

[Tappan Zee Devil]

I didn't realize they renamed the Tappan Zee. Does that mean TappanZeeDevil needs to change his/her name to "CuomoDevil?"

Sheesh. Next thing you'll tell me, Sleepy Hollow has been subsumed by Tarrytown.

(BTW, the WSJ had a front-page article making fun of Bagelgate. Made me chuckle, as only the WSJ can).

NO! That is not happening.

Besides - whatever the bridge is called, that portion of the Hudson is still the Tappan Zee.

And whatever the bridge's official name is, it will still be called the "Tappan Zee". The old bridge was officially the "Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge", but was always called the "Tappan Zee"


TZD

[OldPhiKap]

NO! That is not happening.

Besides - whatever the bridge is called, that portion of the Hudson is still the Tappan Zee.

And whatever the bridge's official name is, it will still be called the "Tappan Zee". The old bridge was officially the "Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge", but was always called the "Tappan Zee"


TZD

Whew. I was concerned.

[OldPhiKap]

NYT calls it for Cuomo:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...elections.html

[OldPhiKap]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

Looks like extremely high turn-out in the NY Democratic primary, which I figure would have helped Nixon. Looks like the opposite may be true.

I continue to believe that the Dem's best chance in 2020 is to nominate a moderate, not someone from the progressive wing of the party. It seems to me that the progressives that have won stand out because they are outliers, not because they are representative of where the majority of the Democrats and left-leaning independents are today.

But who knows. I was surprised at how bitter some of the post-election comments I have seen from Nixon supporters are. Maybe it's a continuation of the Bernie/revolution v. Hillary/establishment thing, maybe it's because Cuomo doesn't have the natural charm and skill his father famously had. Probably a bit of both.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

Looks like extremely high turn-out in the NY Democratic primary, which I figure would have helped Nixon. Looks like the opposite may be true.

I continue to believe that the Dem's best chance in 2020 is to nominate a moderate, not someone from the progressive wing of the party. It seems to me that the progressives that have won stand out because they are outliers, not because they are representative of where the majority of the Democrats and left-leaning independents are today.

But who knows. I was surprised at how bitter some of the post-election comments I have seen from Nixon supporters are. Maybe it's a continuation of the Bernie/revolution v. Hillary/establishment thing, maybe it's because Cuomo doesn't have the natural charm and skill his father famously had. Probably a bit of both.

Cuomo won by about the margin expected. As you noted, one would have thought turnout would have helped Nixon, but it wasn't the case. Cuomo's lieutenant governor had a much tighter race than he did. That is a largely ceremonial role but NY has had governors leave early in the past, so it has to be taken somewhat seriously. The candidate Cuomo endorsed for Attorney General won by more than expected in what was expected to be a tight three-way race. The other news of the day is that a number of Democrats in the state senate who caucused as Republicans were voted out - most were from near New York City.

I watched Nixon's speech and I was quite surprised by it. Typically, one who loses a primary is gracious about it and at some point in their concession speech they pivot to praise the winner and encourage their supporters to support the party. I don't believe Nixon ever did that. Nixon ran way to the left, but Cuomo is left of almost every governor in America. Based on the little I know about him, the Republican candidate is very moderate, but one would think that most Nixon supporters would still prefer Cuomo to the Republican.

If the Democrats are going to start winning, they have to overcome their internal divisions and unify when necessary. During the 2016 election, Trump alienated a number of Republicans but they ultimately voted for him and continue to support him. Democrats seem less willing to do that. The Democrats are going to have a lot of trouble finding a presidential candidate who makes all members of the party happy, and if a large number of Democrats choose to not show up rather than support someone who doesn't perfectly align with their agenda, they are going to lose.

[OldPhiKap]

Cuomo won by about the margin expected. As you noted, one would have thought turnout would have helped Nixon, but it wasn't the case. Cuomo's lieutenant governor had a much tighter race than he did. That is a largely ceremonial role but NY has had governors leave early in the past, so it has to be taken somewhat seriously. The candidate Cuomo endorsed for Attorney General won by more than expected in what was expected to be a tight three-way race. The other news of the day is that a number of Democrats in the state senate who caucused as Republicans were voted out - most were from near New York City.

I watched Nixon's speech and I was quite surprised by it. Typically, one who loses a primary is gracious about it and at some point in their concession speech they pivot to praise the winner and encourage their supporters to support the party. I don't believe Nixon ever did that. Nixon ran way to the left, but Cuomo is left of almost every governor in America. Based on the little I know about him, the Republican candidate is very moderate, but one would think that most Nixon supporters would still prefer Cuomo to the Republican.

If the Democrats are going to start winning, they have to overcome their internal divisions and unify when necessary. During the 2016 election, Trump alienated a number of Republicans but they ultimately voted for him and continue to support him. Democrats seem less willing to do that. The Democrats are going to have a lot of trouble finding a presidential candidate who makes all members of the party happy, and if a large number of Democrats choose to not show up rather than support someone who doesn't perfectly align with their agenda, they are going to lose.

The sense I got from the outside is that to the Nixon supporters, Cuomo was not pure enough. He was part of the [NixonSupporter] corrupt Wall Street crowd and backroom fixing gang [/NixonSupporter] that the diehard Bernie supporters accused Hillary of being. As Sarah Silverman said at the DNC, they gotta get over it if the Dems are to win in November. (Okay, the Dems will win the governor's race in NY regardless but still the point remains).

Looked like a really personal race.

[Bostondevil]

I paid some attention to the governor's race in NY but not a whole lot. There is something about some of these progressive candidates that is off putting. Sanders had it, Nixon had it. They best way I can describe it is the chip they wear on their shoulders gets in the way of them shrugging off the small stuff.

[Troublemaker]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

Looks like extremely high turn-out in the NY Democratic primary, which I figure would have helped Nixon. Looks like the opposite may be true.

I continue to believe that the Dem's best chance in 2020 is to nominate a moderate, not someone from the progressive wing of the party. It seems to me that the progressives that have won stand out because they are outliers, not because they are representative of where the majority of the Democrats and left-leaning independents are today.

But who knows. I was surprised at how bitter some of the post-election comments I have seen from Nixon supporters are. Maybe it's a continuation of the Bernie/revolution v. Hillary/establishment thing, maybe it's because Cuomo doesn't have the natural charm and skill his father famously had. Probably a bit of both.

It's hard to say. Remember that in 2014, there was really only one huge upset -- Dave Brat over Eric Cantor -- against the R establishment, which did a good job holding serve elsewhere. And yet in 2016, the Rs got Nominee (and eventually President) Trump. And second-place was Ted Cruz. Sometimes the passion can bubble underneath without resulting in lots of primary wins.

I think it's telling that the establishment candidates like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have signed on to progressive ideas like "medicare for all" and not accepting corporate PAC money. I think they know that they have to move left to stand a chance of winning the nomination in 2020.

If I had to bet today on whom the D nominee in 2020 will be, my top two choices would be Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in some order. Just like the Rs rejected the establishment in 2016, I think the Ds will reject the establishment in 2020.

Cuomo won by about the margin expected. As you noted, one would have thought turnout would have helped Nixon, but it wasn't the case. Cuomo's lieutenant governor had a much tighter race than he did. That is a largely ceremonial role but NY has had governors leave early in the past, so it has to be taken somewhat seriously. The candidate Cuomo endorsed for Attorney General won by more than expected in what was expected to be a tight three-way race. The other news of the day is that a number of Democrats in the state senate who caucused as Republicans were voted out - most were from near New York City.

I watched Nixon's speech and I was quite surprised by it. Typically, one who loses a primary is gracious about it and at some point in their concession speech they pivot to praise the winner and encourage their supporters to support the party. I don't believe Nixon ever did that. Nixon ran way to the left, but Cuomo is left of almost every governor in America. Based on the little I know about him, the Republican candidate is very moderate, but one would think that most Nixon supporters would still prefer Cuomo to the Republican.

If the Democrats are going to start winning, they have to overcome their internal divisions and unify when necessary. During the 2016 election, Trump alienated a number of Republicans but they ultimately voted for him and continue to support him. Democrats seem less willing to do that. The Democrats are going to have a lot of trouble finding a presidential candidate who makes all members of the party happy, and if a large number of Democrats choose to not show up rather than support someone who doesn't perfectly align with their agenda, they are going to lose.

It depends on whom is being asked to "bite the bullet" and fall in line for the greater good. My read is that the progressive base is sick of being the ones who have to fall in line. Why don't the "moderates" do so instead? Afterall, Trump must be stopped. You could say that's how Trump won in 2016. He won the base over, got the nomination, and then the "moderates" fell in line to prevent Hillary from winning.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The sense I got from the outside is that to the Nixon supporters, Cuomo was not pure enough. He was part of the [NixonSupporter] corrupt Wall Street crowd and backroom fixing gang [/NixonSupporter] that the diehard Bernie supporters accused Hillary of being. As Sarah Silverman said at the DNC, they gotta get over it if the Dems are to win in November. (Okay, the Dems will win the governor's race in NY regardless but still the point remains).

Looked like a really personal race.

I paid some attention to the governor's race in NY but not a whole lot. There is something about some of these progressive candidates that is off putting. Sanders had it, Nixon had it. They best way I can describe it is the chip they wear on their shoulders gets in the way of them shrugging off the small stuff.

You both nailed it well. In the rest of America, Cuomo is incredibly liberal. He was one of the first governors to support gay marriage. Among the strictest gun laws in America. Working towards a $15 minimum wage. Free college tuition for middle class students. However, this is not enough for many, which is why Nixon ran against him. But like BostonDevil, she came across to me as angry and not at all appreciative of the things he has done. There is always room for more and the political process is about pushing candidates, but I think her angst turned off a lot of people. And a lot of those people also were thinking "who are you to complain - other than some low level community activism in NYC, what have you done?"

Cuomo ran more against Trump than against Nixon. He barely referenced her. Unfortunately, at the end, when he tried to campaign against her, he screwed up by claiming she was anti-Semitic (he denied involvement). But in general, he was smart enough to conclude that a lot of New Yorkers really hate Trump, and they need someone to stand up to him. He campaigned that he is that guy and a political newcomer like Nixon would not be capable of doing this. There is a lot of noise around Cuomo about backroom dealing and such - he is a very political creature. And that bothered a lot of people.

I think that in general, the Democrats are still trying to figure themselves out. Trump succeeded by tapping into the anger many people felt towards Democrats and the status quo - anger is an incredible motivator and Trump was able to very successfully unify the wide variety of reasons why Republicans were angry into one unified voting block. Most Democrats now feel a lot of anger towards Trump. But if they continue the infighting and can't unify, particularly behind one presidential candidate, they will go nowhere fast. And they have to balance being against Trump with being for something.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Cuomo won by about the margin expected. As you noted, one would have thought turnout would have helped Nixon, but it wasn't the case. Cuomo's lieutenant governor had a much tighter race than he did. That is a largely ceremonial role but NY has had governors leave early in the past, so it has to be taken somewhat seriously. The candidate Cuomo endorsed for Attorney General won by more than expected in what was expected to be a tight three-way race. The other news of the day is that a number of Democrats in the state senate who caucused as Republicans were voted out - most were from near New York City.

I watched Nixon's speech and I was quite surprised by it. Typically, one who loses a primary is gracious about it and at some point in their concession speech they pivot to praise the winner and encourage their supporters to support the party. I don't believe Nixon ever did that. Nixon ran way to the left, but Cuomo is left of almost every governor in America. Based on the little I know about him, the Republican candidate is very moderate, but one would think that most Nixon supporters would still prefer Cuomo to the Republican.

If the Democrats are going to start winning, they have to overcome their internal divisions and unify when necessary. During the 2016 election, Trump alienated a number of Republicans but they ultimately voted for him and continue to support him. Democrats seem less willing to do that. The Democrats are going to have a lot of trouble finding a presidential candidate who makes all members of the party happy, and if a large number of Democrats choose to not show up rather than support someone who doesn't perfectly align with their agenda, they are going to lose.

I think that a lot of the resentment toward Cuomo has to do with the way politics play out in Albany. It is dominated by non-transparent backroom dealmaking and back scratching, and this seems to result in a lot of corruption with several prominent arrests and trials in the past few years. Many Dems (including me) see Cuomo as a major player in the first and, although probably not personally involved in the second, not very concerned with the corruption. Thus, although we like a lot of what he does and advocates, there is a degree of resentment and dislike.

I really wish he were more like his sainted father.

[OldPhiKap]

I really wish he were more like his sainted father.

Still wondering what skeleton in the closet kept him from running in '92. Although maybe it was because GHWB looked unbeatable two years out...

Mario was one of the most gifted political speakers I have ever seen.

[Tom B.]

If I had to bet today on whom the D nominee in 2020 will be, my top two choices would be Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in some order. Just like the Rs rejected the establishment in 2016, I think the Ds will reject the establishment in 2020.

Except Warren is actually a rather "establishment" D. She's unquestionably from the party's progressive wing, but at the end of the day, she's a longtime party operative and loyalist -- unlike Bernie, a self-styled "outsider" who runs against the Democratic Party almost as much as he runs against Republicans.

And if the Ds nominate either of those two, we might as well pencil in Trump (or Pence, if Trump has resigned/been impeached/been indicted by then) for a second term. The Ds' biggest problem isn't the differences between its progressive and more moderate wings -- it's a lack of freshness. Neither Warren (who'll be 71 in 2020) nor Bernie (who'll be 79) cures that problem. And neither, for that matter, does good ol' Uncle Joe, who'll be 77.

The progressive wing of the party hasn't scored too many big wins in the primaries so far, but take note of the ones who've scored upsets over "establishment" candidates. They're mostly younger, and frequently people of color -- e.g., Andrew Gillum (age 39), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (28), Ben Jealous (45), Stacey Abrams (44), etc. If the progressive wing wants to be relevant, its future lies there, not in the septuagenarian white Boomer caucus.

And then there's this story from a Democratic state House primary race in New Hampshire earlier this week, which might be the most impressive knockoff of an establishment D incumbent yet:

In N.H. election stunner, a onetime refugee knocks off entrenched incumbent

. . . .

Wazir’s unlikely path to New Hampshire politics began when she was 6, and her family fled the Taliban in Afghanistan and moved to Uzbekistan, where she was taunted by classmates who called her “terrorist” and “Taliban kid.”

She lived in Uzbekistan until 2007, when she was 16 and moved with her parents to Concord. She graduated from Concord High School and became an American citizen in 2013. Three years later, after juggling jobs at Walmart and the campus library, she received a degree in business from NHTI, the local community college.

Married with two daughters, ages 5 and 2, and pregnant with a third child due in January, she said she never considered running for office until earlier this year, when a friend who works for the New Hampshire Children’s Trust suggested she consider challenging Patten.

. . . .

Wazir launched her candidacy in June, after a crucial endorsement from her mother, who promised to watch her children while she campaigned, and told her: “You’ve got this. Go for it.”

Despite nausea during the first trimester of her pregnancy, and 90-degree heat, she knocked on doors across the Heights, returning home so heat-stricken she said she “looked like a tomato.”

“I had no negative things said about me,” Wazir said. “People would open their doors and welcome me, and talk to me for 10, 15 minutes. That was warming for me.”

She campaigned on a promise to fight for expanded Medicaid coverage, increased funding for early childhood education, and paid parental leave, issues that resonate with her own life story as a young mother raising a growing family.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...wpL/story.html

[OldPhiKap]

The Democratic base seems to be thriving on fresh blood from an influx of younger voters, non-white voters, and suburban voters turned off by Trump.

I have trouble seeing them all coalescing around either septuagenarian.

Warren would be a great VP pick but I don't see her at the top of the ticket. Sanders is, I think, last week's news electorally speaking and would be well-served to act as a senior statesman on the sideline after the primaries.

But too early to tell. I think Kamala Harris is the candidate to beat.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Except Warren is actually a rather "establishment" D. She's unquestionably from the party's progressive wing, but at the end of the day, she's a longtime party operative and loyalist -- unlike Bernie, a self-styled "outsider" who runs against the Democratic Party almost as much as he runs against Republicans.

And if the Ds nominate either of those two, we might as well pencil in Trump (or Pence, if Trump has resigned/been impeached/been indicted by then) for a second term. The Ds' biggest problem isn't the differences between its progressive and more moderate wings -- it's a lack of freshness. Neither Warren (who'll be 71 in 2020) nor Bernie (who'll be 79) cures that problem. And neither, for that matter, does good ol' Uncle Joe, who'll be 77.

The progressive wing of the party hasn't scored too many big wins in the primaries so far, but take note of the ones who've scored upsets over "establishment" candidates. They're mostly younger, and frequently people of color -- e.g., Andrew Gillum (age 39), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (28), Ben Jealous (45), Stacey Abrams (44), etc. If the progressive wing wants to be relevant, its future lies there, not in the septuagenarian white Boomer caucus.

That is the trick - the Democrats need someone fresh and new, but with some political (or corporate) experience so that they will be respected by the more stodgy wing of the party.

Speaking of which, Bloomberg is apparently strongly considering a run. He has infinite money and plenty of experience, but I don't think he will do the trick. The progressive wing of the party will have no interest in him - all of the progressives in NY have been running on an "I'm not Bloomberg" platform for a while. A few years ago he would have done nicely as a centrist who would attract some fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters, but I don't think that really matters anymore.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-in-2020.html