“Nothing to see here. Let’s move on now” is not an acceptabe substitute for transparency on Trump’s taxes.
Re Trump’s tax returns, New York Times reporters Patrick Healey and Alan Rappeport observe “Making tax returns public is not required of presidential candidates, but there is a long tradition of major party nominees doing so. Joseph J. Thorndike, who tracks presidential tax returns as the director of the Tax History Project at the nonpartisan Tax Analysts, said Mr. Trump would be the first major candidate since 1976 to not make any of his full returns public. President Gerald R. Ford released a summary of his tax returns that year…Dr. Thorndike noted that President Richard M. Nixon released his tax returns while he was under audit, starting the tradition of presidential candidates making their returns public.”
The Nation editor/Washington Post columnist Katrina vanden Heuval makes the case that, “Against Trump, Clinton should resist the temptation of triangulation,” noting “There is no guarantee that pivoting to the middle would attract a significant number of Republicans, who generally loathe Clinton, but it would almost certainly dampen enthusiasm among progressives. Indeed, while Sanders might endorse Clinton at some point, she still has to earn the support of millions of people who voted for him if they are going to remain energized through the fall campaign.”
“In his absolute best-case scenario, Trump might match the two-thirds of white men that Reagan won in 1984, the party’s modern apex. But given Trump’s astronomical unfavorable ratings among African Americans and Hispanics, it’s not unreasonable to project that Clinton could hold the roughly 80 percent of minority voters who have typically backed Democratic nominees since 1976…Trump would then need to attract 58 percent of white women to reach a national majority–slightly more than the 56 percent that Romney won. Looking at the equation from the other direction, if Clinton matched the usual Democratic performance with non-white voters and also carried even half of white women, Trump would then need to win more than three-fourths of white men for a national majority, a daunting prospect…Trump almost certainly can’t beat Clinton, or even stay competitive, without constructing a solid advantage among white women. But today he’s trailing Clinton among them in most surveys.” from Ronald Brownstein’s article, “The Republican Party’s Woman Problem” at The Atlantic.
At HuffPo Seth Abramson charts a narrow path for Sen. Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic presidential nomination, based on his continued momentum, a high-profile upset in California, superior performance vs. Trump in head-to-head horse race polls and super delegates switching to Sanders en masse.
For an interesting preview of the Democratic Party’s Latino messaging strategy at the upcoming convention and going forward to the general election, click here.
“Could Trump help Democrats gain ground in Southern state politics?” Chris Kromm addresses the question at Facing South and notes, “As Gallup found in its most recent survey of partisan affiliation, the electorate in most Southern states is either evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, or leans GOP; only in Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee did voters fall into the “Solid Republican” category.” Kromm sees good chance for a Democratic victory in the NC governors race, where the Republican incumbent is already under criticism for defending against a growing boycott that is costing NC jobs and tourist revenue. Also, Dems could pick up seats in southern state legislatures, perhaps enough to prevent veto-prof majorities in several states.
Quinnipiac University poll shows close U.S. senate races in OH, PA and FL.
And the same poll shows “Buckeye state voters overwhelmingly support legalizing medical marijuana by a margin of 90% to 9%. They narrowly support allowing recreational use of the drug, by 52% to 45%.”