Posts by Matt Bai
Matt Bai at Yahoo News 8 days ago
Let's get a few things out of the way. Many years ago, I accidentally tried to carry a commemorative hunting knife onto a plane and was briefly questioned. I have forged my wife's name on countless checks. I once sat in the mayor's box at Yankee Stadium and accepted free ice cream.
Since this column concerns a certain Uber executive, I figured I might as well disclose all the embarrassing stuff up front, just to save him the trouble.
Of course, Uber's Emil Michael didn't know he was being quoted when he told an audience last week about his brilliant plan to expose the private lives of reporters. Neither did Jonathan Gruber, who helped craft the president's health care law, when he declared on video that voters were morons. Both men are just the latest victims, I guess, of the social-media culture I've often lamented, which routinely ruins good reputations by magnifying a few clumsy words beyond all proportion.
Matt Bai at Yahoo News 14 days ago
There's a lot of talk in Washington these days about economic inequality, but not much by way of constructive ideas for how to reduce it. The loudest voices call for steeply higher taxes on wealth, which would certainly feel like justice — except that even if you just transferred all those taxes directly to the poor, you might not actually do much to make middle-income Americans more secure.
Others talk about reforming an educational system that was once the ladder for economic mobility, which probably gets us closer to an enduring solution, but that's politically divisive and will be a generations-long project, in any event.
Now from the West Coast comes an intriguing idea: a business venture called Aspiration, whose mission is to give middle-income families access to the same variety of investment vehicles that richer Americans have. I don't know if that can work, but it does strike me that trying to democratize Wall Street might be a better strategy than sitting around and railing against it.
Matt Bai at Yahoo 21 days ago
It'll be a while before we've all had a chance to go through the election data and draw any thorough conclusions, but what seems clear right now is that Republicans did a better job than Democrats of hitting their targets, just as they did in 2010. And this raises a pretty profound question about Barack Obama's ballyhooed turnout machine, which was supposed to be the baddest thing built by dudes with spreadsheets since the advent of the search engine.
Was it all just a mirage or what?
The answer here has implications far beyond what happened with the Senate this week, or even for 2016. It's really about the party's entire theory of success.
Remember that Obama's strategists didn't simply assume control of the Democratic Party when they won in 2008; they actually supplanted it. The idea was that his field operation, rechristened Organizing for America (as opposed to Obama for America) after the campaign, was far more sophisticated and space-age than anything Democrats already had in-house. So OFA moved into the Democratic National Committee and effectively took it over.
Six years and three election cycles later, I think we can say: Yeah, maybe not.
Matt Bai at Yahoo News 22 days ago
Lost in all the headlines about a Republican takeover this morning is a single salient fact about where we are as a country politically: Barack Obama will now become the third consecutive president to come into office with governing majorities in both houses of Congress and leave office having fumbled away control of both of them. This kind of streak hasn’t happened before. Like, ever.
What that suggests is that for all the perennial talk about the system being rigged in favor of one party or the other by money or redistricting or demographic shifts, our recent politics is defined mainly by unprecedented swings in power. And if the potential 2016 candidates who will soon face decision time haven’t though much about this volatility and what it might mean for their potential presidencies (and, more immediately, for their campaigns), then they probably should.
And somehow, as implausible as it might have seemed, all three of our most recent presidents will likely end up having left Washington — and, by extension, the rest of the country — even more divided than it was when they got there.
Matt Bai at Yahoo News 28 days ago
And now, with the midterm elections just a week away, Christie finds himself at the center of another storm as he stares down the federal government over the question of what to do with aid workers returning from West Africa. Christie has decided he can forcibly quarantine travelers at risk of Ebola, with or without working toilets. Obama thinks it's fine to send them home with a request not to go around potentially exposing everyone to one of the planet's deadliest viruses (if it's not too much trouble).
The flare-up highlights, yet again, the sharply contrasting leadership styles of the two men in a crisis. And it demonstrates why the pugilistic governor of New Jersey, whether ally or adversary, has emerged over these years as the yang to Obama's yin, the closest thing this president has to a genuine foil.
And although he would never say so, it's a good bet that Christie would have taken the debt-cutting deal with entitlement cuts that Obama offered congressional Republicans in 2011, even with the added tax revenue that Boehner couldn't sell to his caucus. Christie hammered out similar compromises with Democrats in his own legislature.
Fortunately, I have a pretty good sense of what I've been missing, thanks to the endless stream of political emails that keep repopulating my iPhone inbox, like brain-eating bacteria. And so this week I inaugurate what may become a new, recurring feature of the "On Politics" column: the silliest emails of the week.
Here they are, in no particular order:
From: Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Re: Everything's TIED! "All of the year's top battlegrounds are tied right now. ALL OF THEM."
Really? ALL of them? As in, like, 50-50? Not even 52-48? No one is winning anywhere ? I really don't think that's true. _________________________________
From: Republican National Committee Re: ICYMI: RNC and LAGOP Chairmen Hold Conference Call on Anniversary of Landrieu's Keystone Show Vote "Tomorrow marks the four-month anniversary since Mary Landrieu's politically motivated show vote on the Keystone pipeline in the Senate Energy Committee."
OK, first of all, $13,580 is an awfully specific number. Are you sure $13,575 won't get it done? How exactly has this been calculated?
Hillary Clinton gave a political speech in Pennsylvania last weekend, which, in case you missed the coverage, pretty much locked up the 2016 nomination. Don't be surprised if they hold the Democratic convention over Skype sometime this month, just to dispense with the tiresome formalities of an actual campaign. Maybe they'll throw in the 2020 nomination, too, while they've got everyone on the line.
I've written many times now that I'm less convinced of Clinton's inevitability than, you know, everybody. But leaving that aside for the moment, assuming she runs, the talk in Washington is about to pivot to the question of who runs with her. The elbowing for second position has already begun with a series of high-profile endorsements, most recently by Joaquin Castro, the Texas congressman whose brother, Julian, is considered a vice presidential contender.
And yet here we are, a month from the midterm elections, and Kansas is the most interesting state on the map. I recently wrote about Paul Davis, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate whose campaign was roiled by the revelation that he once walked into a strip club. And now I turn your attention to Greg Orman, a former business consultant and clean energy entrepreneur, who is running for the U.S. Senate as an independent against the state's powerful Republican incumbent, Pat Roberts.
Since the Democratic candidate dropped out to give Orman more running room, he seems to have opened up a surprising lead in the race; according to this fascinating analysis by Vox's Andrew Prokop last week, Orman is the only Senate candidate in the country who keeps getting more popular, rather than less.
Who knows if Orman's lead will hold, or if it's illusory to begin with. But if both parties aren't paying close attention to what's happening in stolid Kansas right now, they ought to be.
You see, the party's base voters — the ones who turn out to vote in primaries and caucuses — are too completely off the rails to nominate a mushball like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie! Get real — those guys can't make it through the primaries talking about immigration reform and bipartisanship and blah-blah-blabbedy-blah. They'd get dismantled in the early states, just like that "maverick" John McCain and that liberal Mitt Romney!
Oh. Hang on.
Here's what some commentators and conservative bloggers seem to be forgetting: Old-line, establishment Republicans have managed to wrest the nomination in every election since Ronald Reagan left office, and there's really no reason to think it's any less plausible in 2016. In fact, if a Bush or a Christie decides to go all in, the smart move probably isn't to be more doctrinaire, but actually less so.
And if I'm right, then that raises an interesting question. What lesson should an establishment nominee really take away from the last two elections?
Matt Bai at Yahoo News 2 mths ago
These are the questions some Kansans might fairly ask themselves this week, after the Coffeyville Journal (I'm not making that up) revealed to the world that the Democratic candidate for governor Paul Davis had once been caught in a strip club while police were raiding it. That happened back in the late '90s, when Davis was 26, unmarried and not running for anything. (He's now 42, a dad and a state legislator.) Davis wasn't charged with a thing; he was just there, doing things that were legal if not especially ennobling.
For those of us who write about politics for a living, all of this should provoke a different set of complicated questions. Such as: When does boneheaded private behavior become relevant to one's public integrity? And who gets to decide — the media or the voters?
For the first time ever in presidential campaign politics, in a stark reversal from the eras of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, the candidate's fidelity to his wife became an all-consuming story of the new satellite age. After only five days Hart was forced to withdraw from the race.