Monday, June 20, 2016

Anonymous Wall Street donors want to veto Elizabeth Warren as Clinton's VP choice

Ben White reports for Politico (Wall Street donors seek to block Warren VP pick 06/20/2016) that major Wall Street donors are threatening to withhold further donations if Hillary Clinton picks Elizabeth Warren as her running mate.

Since Hillary Clinton assures us that Wall Street donations don't influence her at all in any way, that obviously won't be an issue.

Anyway, White quotes anonymous "donors," so who knows what this is actually about?

Although this is a nice touch:

All of the donors and senior Democrats interviewed for this story demanded that their names not be used both because they were not authorized to speak about the Clinton campaign’s internal deliberations and because they feared Warren’s wrath.

Sounds like a TV movie: The Wrath Of Warren. This is notable, too: "A constant theme that emerged in the interviews is that executives in the financial industry believe the first 100 days of a Clinton administration could feature potential deal making with Republicans, who are likely to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives." Maybe they can ask those nice Republicans to raise Social Security benefits, or ban domestic assault rifle sales. I'm sure they'll be very eager to help.

Does it strike any one as odd that none of these anonymous Wall Street donors told Politico that, gee, we'd prefer not to have Warren as the VP candidate but Donald Trump is such a radical threat to democracy that of course we'll support Clinton all-out no matter who she picks for VP?

I went over to the partisan Hillary site Blue Nation Review thinking I'd see them saying, hey, these Wall Street dead-enders will be the ones to blame if Trump gets elected! But strangely, they didn't have anything like that posted yet.

Susie Madrak does have a new post up at BNR today, though, Donald Ousts Campaign Manager Lewandowski as Campaign Melts Down. She gives a lot of weight to the much-discussed Block Trump movement in the Republican Party: "Free The Delegates, the group that’s trying to organize a takedown of Trump’s nomination at the Republican convention, announced plans to raise money for staff and a possible legal defense fund. They also claim that several hundred delegates are part of the movement."

Mocking the troubles of the opposing campaign is standard fare, of course. Still, Democrats do have reason to worry about excess complacency in the Clinton campaign. They obviously never expected to see such a serious primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. And they've pretty much been saying that it was time for him and his silly young voters to drop their campaign since the primary voting began.

I'm very so dubious about the talk the last couple of weeks about how "responsible" Republicans will keep their distance from his Presidential campaign, or even block his nomination. Even the Pod Pundit Panel on Meet the Press yesterday was making sense on the latter. How can Republicans block his nomination after his primary wins and when virtually no leading Republican is willing to sign on to create a high-profile effort to block Trump's nomination? Trump has enormous weakness as a Presidential candidate, along with small hands. But I don't think the Democrats should be complacent about his ability in a one-on-one race to polarize voters into his column.

Here's some of Chuck's panel (Meet the Press transcript 06/19/2016):


It's less likely to happen than to happen [sic], but it's real. Because you've got now a attitude within the Republican party at the highest levels, that this would be better for the party. One strategist, top strategist, said to me yesterday, "There's a meteorite headed towards planet Earth, you do what you have to do."

And they believe they could lose with Trump and that they will lose with Trump at the highest levels of the party, or they can try something different, as messy as it would be. The key for them is to not let this be something seen as led by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, but led by the delegates themselves. There is this movement that you mentioned at the top of the show. Their hope is that that catches on, and they're willing to go--


That it looks organic.


That it looks organic and it looks like it's grassroots and that the delegates can trump the voters more easily than people in Washington. Trump talks about it being illegal, it's not illegal. If the delegates decide to do this, they can. And there's a real chance that if Trump continues to be down in the polls, continues to hurt Senate candidates and House candidates, continues to not build infrastructure, there's a real chance that they'll make a strong effort to do it.


You know, Gwen, to have that effort, you have to have the people in place.




And it was interesting to me who Reince Priebus, the chairman of the party appointed to run the rules committee. One is Enid Mickelsen. She is a Ted Cruz delegate, a long-time member of the Utah Republican party, Utah.


We remember her from when she was in Congress.


And Utah, not a big fan of Donald Trump. Then the co-chair is Ron Kaufman, he is a Trump delegate. But you've known Ron Kaufman for years, a long time Bush guy.


He's a Bush guy. Yeah.


So, I look at those two and I think, "Oh, maybe they are preparing for something."


I don't know after watching that interview with Paul Ryan how you can believe that they can make this seem organic. If you want to lead a movement, you've got to have leaders of that movement. I don't think we have leaders in this Congress. I think they all want to not answer, as we saw Mitch McConnell do. I think the idea that somehow, from the grassroots, people are just going to reach up and do what the leadership wants has never proven to be true.

The Republican party is acting like the Democratic party usually acts, which is incredibly disorganized. I think it's what they pray for every night, that something will suddenly happen. But Donald Trump has a point. How do you do this, how do you go to Cleveland and say, "The primaries didn't matter and find somebody else?" And that's the big flaw in this whole idea.


This reminds me of the, and my dad had this, the big comb-over, you know? The person--


Where are you going with this?


The person with the comb-over thinks you think it looks natural. And that it really is that way. But when you're looking at the person, you're saying, "That's a big comb-over." This thing is being organic and that it comes from the bottom up is a big comb-over. It's a big comb-over. We can see it, everybody's going to see it. And you can say what you wish, if it's coming from all these organized groups, it's a comb-over.


Wow. Katy, you know Trump as well as anybody at this table. In a weird way, he would relish a fight like -- wouldn't he?


Oh, absolutely. And he's benefited every time he's looked like more of an outsider. For him to embrace the party is not necessarily on message for how he's been going about this campaign. He clearly feels uncomfortable with it. That's why you're seeing so much stress when it comes to Donald Trump raising money and go to these donor meetings.

And the word behind the scenes that he's having a hard time saying, "Please give me money," because it's anti to his outsider message. So this would work for him. But the problem is, he just looks like he's sputtering right now. He looks like he is a candidate who once had control of his ideas and his message is now on the defensive, is backtracking.

And a lot of his supporters are saying -- and I've talked to a number of them who have decided that they're not going to support him any longer, which is surprising -- die-hard people who were in it with him, have said that it's just too much lately. The Judge Curiel comments were too much for them more so than the President comments. The Judge Curiel comments seem to be hurting him greatly among a certain contingent of his supporters. [my emphasis]

No comments: