Greg Sargent:
Why can’t Trump or Clinton unite our badly divided country? It’s the wrong question.
If the phrase “trying to unify the country” at this particular moment has any meaning, one such theoretical effort might reside in trying to acknowledge, and speak to, the grievances on both sides of this divide. Thus far, Clinton has clearly tried harder to accomplish this than Trump has, though Trump has not completely punted on it, either. In speeches and interviews (see this one and this one), Clinton has repeatedly spoken out forcefully for the need for greater respect for police, and for recognizing the good intentions of the vast majority of them and their vital role in protecting peaceful protest. She did this while simultaneously calling for greater respect for the legitimate grievances of protestors who believe that African Americans are disproportionately targeted by lethal force wielded by police (see Wesley Lowery’s terrific piece running through the data confirming this.)
67% say Trump is to blame, 16% say Clinton. But media says both candidates are divisive. Here’s the poll from end of June.
Tim Dunlop:
The frustration that many consumers of political journalism — citizens — feel about everyday political journalism can often be traced to a sense that journalists are working from an understanding of what the job entails, one that is fundamentally different to their own.
If you’ve ever watched a bunch of people yelling at a television while a journalist asks a politician questions, you will know what I mean. “Don’t ask that! Don’t let him get away with that! Make him answer! Can’t you see that you are being played!” You know the sort of thing. People can become incredibly angry that, in their opinion, the journalist isn’t doing his or her job properly, where “properly” is to do with their unspoken presumptions about what the role of journalism is.
What I’m interested in, then, is this: what is the underlying process or presumption that causes this disconnect between audience expectation and professional practice?
What is it that makes journalists treat both sides equally when they are clearly not? Perhaps a devotion to process (“See? The serial liar gave a press conference! He’s great!”) over substance. Interesting piece, give it a read.
Terrific Ezra Klein piece on Clinton:
Other politicians find themselves under continuous assault, but their poll numbers strengthen amid campaigns. Barack Obama’s approval rating rose in the year of his reelection. So too did George W. Bush’s. And Bill Clinton’s. All three sustained attacks. All three endured opponents lobbing a mix of true and false accusations. But all three seemed boosted by running for the job — if anything, people preferred watching them campaign to watching them govern.
Hillary Clinton is just the opposite. There is something about her persona that seems uniquely vulnerable to campaigning; something is getting lost in the Gap. So as I interviewed Clinton's staffers, colleagues, friends, and foes, I began every discussion with some form of the same question:What is true about the Hillary Clinton you’ve worked with that doesn’t come through on the campaign trail?
The answers startled me in their consistency. Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns. On the one hand, that makes my job as a reporter easy. There actually is an answer to the question. On the other hand, it makes my job as a writer harder: It isn’t a very satisfying answer to the question, at least not when you first hear it.
Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens.
She’s not a male and doesn’t campaign or govern as an alpha male. And it doesn’t bother her one bit. Who knew?
The Ezra piece reminds me of this from Paul Krugman, a year old now:
What I would argue is key to this situation — and, in particular, key to understanding how the conventional wisdom on Trump/McCain went so wrong — is the reality that a lot of people are, in effect, members of a delusional cult that is impervious to logic and evidence, and has lost touch with reality.
I am, of course, talking about pundits who prize themselves for their centrism.
Pundit centrism in modern America is a strange thing. It’s not about policy, as you can see from the many occasions when members of the cult have demanded that Barack Obama change his ways and advocate things that … he was already advocating. What defines the cult is, instead, the insistence that the parties are symmetric, that they are equally extreme, and that the responsible, virtuous position is always somewhere in between.
The trouble is that this isn’t remotely true.
WaPo editorial:
Both are unpopular. Only one is a threat.
Monte Frank (from Newtown’s team 26):
To be clear, however, violence against police officers will not solve anything. Indeed, the Black Lives Matter movement has condemned the attacks on the police officers in Dallas, calling it a "tragedy — both for those who have been impacted by yesterday's attack and for our democracy." The movement must be vigilant to make sure its rhetoric does not encourage violence against police officers, and to denounce it when others do so. The overwhelming majority of police officers are good people who defend our freedoms.
The Black Lives Matter movement should be considered by all Americans as a recognition and a challenge. We should recognize the effects of hundreds of years of discrimination. We should challenge our government, our institutions, our police forces, our criminal justice system, our corporations, and our schools and universities to constantly examine their policies to promote diversity and inclusion, to call out discrimination and reduce implicit bias. Implicit bias training must be part of police training. The U.S. Justice Department recently announced that more than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors will receive training aimed at preventing unconscious bias from influencing their law enforcement decisions. That effort should be expanded.
In addition, we must solve our gun violence problem.
AP:
Even among Trump's many controversial statements — Clinton aides see them as an embarrassment of riches — the footage of him appearing to mock a disabled reporter stands out, evoking one of the strongest reactions from voters in focus groups and other forums.
"Everything in our research showed people found that clip very disturbing, and how could they not? It's the Republican nominee for president of the United States making fun of disabled people on national television," said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for Priorities USA.
The footage comes from a Trump campaign rally in November in South Carolina. On stage, he acts out his impression of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who had disputed Trump's claim about "thousands" of people celebrating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"Now, the poor guy — you've got to see this guy, 'Ah, I don't know what I said! I don't remember!'" Trump said. He later said he was only acting as a flustered reporter, not one with a disability. And he denied knowing Kovaleski, who had covered him for years.
One Clinton aide said the response from voters is strongest when they see the video, which they say leaves people with no doubt that Trump was making fun of the reporter's disability.
The video clip is making it into multiple pro-Clinton efforts.
Paul Waldman:
The short-term problem is obvious. Despite Hillary Clinton’s clear vulnerabilities, if the electorate makes its decision just on personality, Republicans will lose. The public as a whole may not like or trust Clinton, but they really don’t like Trump.
The ideological challenge the GOP faces is more fundamental, though; it was there before this election and will be there after it. And nowhere is it clearer than on issues around sexuality and identity.
Charlie Cook:
Of course, this election is not over. It is still about four months away, but the volatility and unpredictable nature of the Republican nomination contest is now only a memory. Trump has his base and 10 tons of dynamite will not dislodge those voters. But as unenthusiastic as so many voters are about Clinton, few of the undecideds seem to be even considering the real-estate mogul. Trump’s habit of being a political and decidedly unfunny version of Don Rickles, insulting nearly everyone in sight, has marginalized him and minimized the elasticity of his support. If you are not for Trump now, the odds are pretty good that you aren’t going to be for him between now and November. He is either speaking for you or he is offending you, and seems not much interested in persuading you.
Morning Consult looks at VP choices (my bold):
Among Republican voters, 21 percent of respondents said Gingrich would make them more likely to back Trump. On the other side of the aisle, the same percentage of Democratic voters (21 percent) said Warren would help convince them to back Clinton.
But by and large, none of the potential candidates appears to play a large factor in motivating voters to get to the polls. Of all the vice presidential contenders, almost half of voters said the prospective picks would have no impact either way on their vote.
In terms of voter support, the weakest contenders on the Republican side include Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions. Those officials would only make 11 percent, 12 percent, and 12 percent of respondents, respectively, more likely to back Trump in November.
Politico:
Clinton's new friend — and maybe VP
Unlike other Democrats being mentioned as potential running mates, Tom Perez has actually gotten to know Hillary and Bill Clinton, and they’ve both taken a shine to him.