A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.

30 March 2016

Political briefs

Greg Gianforte’s private giving is a legitimate public issue. He’s resisting that notion, but it’s an argument he’ll lose — and should lose. His choice of causes, organizations, and people, to fund reveals much about his values and judgment, and provides insight into the priorities he would set as governor. That matters to voters. So does his public giving, as Don Pogreba notes at Intelligent Discontent.

Gianforte’s trying not to say foolish things. That’s why he’s ducking questions with “No comment,” and resisting questions he considers unfair, irrelevant, or dangerous. He’s not the first businessman turned politician to employ this approach, which makes sense of a kind. What he doesn’t say can’t be quoted to his disadvantage. But by not saying anything, he clears the field for his opposition to define him. Candidates are always better off if they define themselves.

If Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, will Republicans lose majorities in Congress and state legislatures? That still doesn’t seem likely, but it no longer can be dismissed as a lottery odds long shot. At some point, certain conservative voters — especially establishment Republicans who abominate the unwashed authoritarians backing Trump — may decide the Republican party cannot be trusted to control the government. If these voters refuse to mark their ballots for Republican candidates, Democrats could regain the majorities they lost in the debacles of 2010 and 2014.

But Trump, as Thomas Edsall warns in today’s New York Times, should not be underestimated:

The comparatively low levels of support for Trump among college-educated Republicans, women, young voters and those with incomes above $100,000 suggest that these voters are most likely to sit out the election or to vote Democratic if Trump is the nominee. Conversely, groups that gave him higher than average support in the primaries — the less well educated, those with incomes below the median, men and rural voters — are likely to deliver his best margins in the general election.

If there are two key themes in the election so far, one is Trump’s ability to enrage; the other is his ability to exceed expectations. The disregard of liberal and conservative elites for working and middle class voters has manifested itself in a consistent underestimation of the anger, resentment and pessimism of these voters — and hence of their electoral power.

A long presidential primary campaign is good for the Democrats. Not everyone thinks so, of course. Some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters, angry that Bernie Sanders had the temerity to challenge her for the nomination, and not a little worried that he still could win, want Bernie to strike his campaign now and clear Hillary’s way to the nomination. That makes no sense to me. Thus far, their campaign has been an exchange of ideas that presents quite a contrast, and quite a favorable contrast, to the Republican’s exchange of insults.

Some of Hillary’s supporters, certain that she’ll win the nomination, want the primary campaign to end now so that Bernie’s supporters have time to get over their hurt feelings and join her campaign, and so that she can start campaigning against Trump. Self-righteous Hillaryites are flooding the internet with sanctimonious taunts imploring Bernie’s backers to swallow their pride and kiss up to Sister Clinton.

Nothing, however, more effectively illustrates how the two parties differ than the night and day contrast between the campaigns they’re running.

That tit for tat is best ignored. After the Democrats choose a nominee, the party will close ranks and work 24/7 to win the election.