Politics with Amy Walter

After all the drama in 2016, the Democratic National Committee has reformed the nomination process. Today on Politics with Amy Walter from The Takeaway, a look at the new rules and what impact they could have both intended and unintended. Tom Perez was elected as chairman of the DNC in 2017. Perez's mission is to insure that 2020 isn’t a repeat of 2016. That doesn’t just mean winning, it means re-instilling faith in the system for Democrats. And the DNC has done a lot of work on this front. Amy Walter talks with chairman Perez about the reforms the DNC has undertaken. Also: we look into the potential unintended consequence of the new superdelegate rule with Dave Wasserman from the Cook Political Report. Julia Azari, an associate professor of political science at Marquette University, gives us the rundown on the new and confusing debate rules. Jeff Link, a longtime Iowa Democratic strategist, explains what’s new for the first caucus state and the role that Iowa plays in the presidential nominating process. We also tackle the unwritten rules on money and fundraising with Maggie Severns of Politico and try to figure out what the role of the DNC actually is these days, and how it’s changed in the last 25 years with Jamal Simmons of HillTV. Amy's Final Take:  When it comes to covering a primary, the media spends most of its time focused on candidates - their personalities, their policies, and their blunders. But, winning candidates spend a lot of their time focused on the unsexy stuff - how to leverage the rules to their advantage. For example, Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008 realized early on that the delegate rules meant that caucuses were going to win him a lot of delegates - even if they didn’t garner as much media attention as big primary states like Pennsylvania or Texas. This year, Democrats have lots of new written and unwritten rules to figure out. How to raise lots of money without looking beholden to corportists and one percenters. How to get on the debate stage - and make the most of that opportunity. And, how to convince primary voters that they won the process fair and square. As we saw in 2016, winning the primary is only one part of the challenge for the nominee. He or she has to keep the party unified and inspired all through the general election too. Read her latest Cook Political Report here.

Two things happened on the Hill this week. The most high profile of course came on Thursday when the Republican-controlled Senate voted with Democrats, in a rebuke of President Trump’s national emergency declaration for funding of the border wall. But here’s something that might have gotten lost: The day before seven Republican senators voted along with Democrats to end U.S. support of the Saudi led war in Yemen. What does this split tell us about President Trump’s relationship with Republicans in congress? Eliana Johnson is a White House Reporter for Politico. She’s been following this and is here to help us make sense of it all. We also hear from former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld who is considering a primary challenge to President Trump. Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an opinion columnist at the Washington Post, thinks Governor Weld or any other ‘moderate’ Republican considering a challenge to President Trump is on a fool’s errand.   This month, Jay Inslee, the Democratic governor of Washington state, declared he is running for President, and climate change is his number one issue. According to a recent Pew Research Survey, about 67 percent of Democrats see climate change as a top priority, but only 21 percent of Republicans feel that way. Amy asked Governor Inslee how he plans to bring the country together over an issue that only half of the country views as a priority. Amy's Final Take:  Since that day in 2015 when he descended the golden escalator in Trump tower, people like me have wondered whether the GOP would split apart over Donald Trump. His populist, pro-tariff views would alienate business-friendly GOP types. His past support for abortion rights and his multiple divorces would scare off evangelical voters. And, his anti-immigration rhetoric went against the advice of establishment Republicans who warned that unless the GOP expanded its appeal beyond white voters, it would find itself in a demographic death-spiral. Yet, here we are - almost four years later - and the president is as popular with the GOP base as ever. What keeps the GOP together? The president has given Republicans what they wanted - and avoided (for now) the things they worried about him doing. Many don’t like the steel and aluminum tariffs. But, back in 2016 he warned of imposing a 45 percent tariff on Chinese-made goods. Instead of unilaterally pulling out of NAFTA, as he once warned he’d do, he re-negotiated the trade deal. And, he’s not wavered on cultural or social issues that are important to evangelical voters. In other words, he’s giving most Republicans what they wanted. Another unifying factor for the GOP: the 2020 democratic candidates. Even if you don’t like Trump, well, the potential Democratic nominee could be much, much worse.  This is why the president is spending so much time and energy labeling Democrats as the party of socialism. So, the GOP sticks with Trump because he’s giving them most of what they want, but also because the Democratic choice is unpalatable. We should stop asking if Trump is going to lose support from Republicans - he probably won’t. Instead, what we should be looking for is whether he can keep GOPers as motivated to turn out and vote.  Trump had an enthusiasm advantage over Clinton in 2016. In 2018, it was Democrats who were more motivated. Let’s see what 2020 brings. Read Amy's latest Cook Political report here.

Divide Over Israel Remains After House Passes Generic "Anti-Hate" Measure After initial plans to condemn anti-Semitism more specifically were scrapped, the U.S. House of Representatives' Democratic leadership opted for a more generic "anti-hate" measure. Amy's Take: Where Have Bipartisan Priorities Gone? Amy Walter examines why Democrats and Republicans no longer agree about which issues demand the greatest urgency. Citizenship Question Defies Purpose of the Census, Says CA Sec. of State "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" That question has not been asked as part of the full, once-a-decade census since 1950.

Amy Walter talked to Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat from Illinois, who serves on both the Committee On Oversight And Reform and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he was in both the public Cohen hearing on Wednesday and the closed door hearing on Thursday. Congressman Krishnamoorthi told Amy he does not believe that now is the right time to start impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. He wants to wait until after the Mueller investigation is over.  Yoni Appelbaum, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and the author of their March cover story, IMPEACH, disagrees with Congressman Krishnamoorthi's assessment. He says the legislators saying wait have got it wrong. We speak to journalist Yoni Appelbaum about why he thinks it’s time to impeach President Trump.  But what about the argument against? For that we turn to Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist. Throughout history only two presidents have actually faced impeachment, what can we learn about the circumstances then and how it could impact the decision to impeach President Trump or not? For that we talk to Leah Wright Rigueur, an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Stacey Abrams is the former Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives and was the Democratic Party’s nominee in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election. We check in with Abrams to find out about her work on election reform, plus to ask her what she thinks about the 2020 race, and her role in politics going forward.

Pete Buttigieg is the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana - population 102,000. Back in January, “Mayor Pete,” as he’s known at home (let’s face it, he has a hard last name to pronounce) launched an exploratory bid for president of the United States. When Amy Walter sat down with Buttigieg she was curious to find out what he thinks distinguishes him as a candidate. "I think I distinguish myself as a millennial midwestern mayor at a time when my party has struggled to connect to the industrial midwest, that's where I'm from the so-called rust belt. At a time when we’ve sometimes looked too readily to Washington for leadership, I'm a mayor and I have a very different reality in terms of government at the city level - which I would argue is the level of American democracy that is working best today - and I do have a millennial perspective too that is that of belonging to the generation that will be on the receiving end of decisions being made today on everything from gun safety to climate change." The historic nature of a potential run for president is not lost on Buttigieg but he also realizes he has to offer more to be a serious contender. "Whatever is in your profile on paper maybe gets you a look but then pretty quickly the conversation evolves to what it is you have to say and how you say it." Amy's Final Take: When you are a small fish swimming in a big pond - especially a pond filled with fish who have lots of star power and name recognition - well, you’ve got a lot to prove. Part of the reason Buttigieg has been able not just to capture the media attention but to keep it is because he’s incredibly articulate. He knows what he wants to say and how to say it. That includes how he positions himself in a primary where there’s a growing divide over whether Democrats should put forward the candidate with the boldest, most aggressive agenda. Or if they need to promote the candidate who is more pragmatic and incremental. Plus, Amy Walter talks to two reporters who have been on the 2020 campaign trail to get the sense of what things are like on the ground. Juana Summers is a national political reporter covering the 2020 campaign for the Associated Press, and Annie Linskey is a national political reporter covering the 2020 campaign for The Washington Post. 

Ahead of the Presidents Day holiday, Amy Walter talks to Dr. Barbara Perry about the role of of the executive and how it has changed over time. Dr. Perry is a professor of presidential studies at the University of Virginia. She says to understand how the president’s role has changed and developed over the course of history we have to go to the beginning, like the real beginning.    

On Friday, to avert another government shutdown, President Trump signed a bipartisan spending package that he argues did not include enough funding for a border wall. To secure that funding, he declared a national emergency. In advance of Trump’s official announcement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke out against the idea of an emergency declaration. Is declaring a national emergency in this situation allowed? Unprecedented? To get a better understanding of this use of executive power Amy Walter spoke to Dr. Barbara Perry, the director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.

How Does the "Blue Wall" Look for 2020? Amy Walter's latest Cook Political Report: Ambivalent voters who disliked both presidential nominees. Tepid enthusiasm from Democrats for their nominee. Tremendous support and energy from Republicans for theirs. Those were the three most important factors in Trump’s success in the three blue wall states. As we look to 2020, we know that Trump continues to enjoy solid support from his base, but the Democrats are at least equally energized to get out and vote against him. This leaves the battle for the 'ambivalent' voter as the most critical piece of the 2020 strategy. Trump has done little in his tenure in office to woo those not already in his base. The only question now is if Democrats will nominate a candidate who can appeal to these voters, or if they will choose a flawed candidate who will, once again, force these voters into having to decide between the "best-worst-choice." Read the full analysis here.

How Does the "Blue Wall" Look for 2020? Amy Walter's latest Cook Political Report: Ambivalent voters who disliked both presidential nominees. Tepid enthusiasm from Democrats for their nominee. Tremendous support and energy from Republicans for theirs. Those were the three most important factors in Trump’s success in the three blue wall states. As we look to 2020, we know that Trump continues to enjoy solid support from his base, but the Democrats are at least equally energized to get out and vote against him. This leaves the battle for the 'ambivalent' voter as the most critical piece of the 2020 strategy. Trump has done little in his tenure in office to woo those not already in his base. The only question now is if Democrats will nominate a candidate who can appeal to these voters, or if they will choose a flawed candidate who will, once again, force these voters into having to decide between the "best-worst-choice." Read the full analysis here.

When do we give politicians and public figures the benefit of the doubt? When do we forgive them for their past transgressions? And when do force them to step down? These are questions we’re asking today and they are the questions the people of Virginia are wrestling with right now. The governor of the state, Ralph Northam, has been embroiled in a scandal since earlier this month when photos of his medical school yearbook surfaced, showing one person in blackface, another in a Klu Klux Klan robe. There were calls for him to resign, and for Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, a black politician who was next in line, to take over. But now he’s involved in his own scandal. On February 6, Dr. Vanessa Tyson released a statement accusing the lieutenant governor of sexual assault. Her allegation dates back to the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. “After the assault, I suffered from both deep humiliation and shame,” Tyson wrote. “I did not speak about it for years.” Soon after, another woman, Meredith Watson, has also accused Fairfax of sexual assault. Fairfax has denied any wrongdoing and called for an FBI investigation into the allegations. And third in line for Governor, Attorney General Mark Herring, who after the Northam and Fairfax revelations, admitted that he wore blackface at a college party in the 1980s. How do we decide when and how to hold politicians accountable? Here to help us work through these questions are Jamelle Bouie, an opinion columnist for The New York Times and Joan Walsh, the National Affairs Correspondent for The Nation.  

As the 2020 campaign season kicks off many of the declared and likely Democratic candidates seem to be throwing their support behind "Medicare for all." But what does "Medicare for all" actually mean? And is it achievable?  Sarah Kliff, a health policy journalist for Vox, defines the term.  Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton, gives us a historical look at how healthcare reform has worked in the U.S in the past. Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, explains what she views as the best path forward, while Avik Roy, the president of The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, offers a different opinion.  And Mollyann Brodie, the executive director of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, explains how Americans feel about "Medicare for all" based on polling data.  Plus, we remember former Representative John Dingell from Michigan, the longest serving member of Congress and champion of health care reform.

We are still one year away from the 2020 Iowa Caucus, and already we have ten Democrats who have officially announced their candidacies, plus another dozen or so who are seriously thinking about it.   The latest to announce: Cory Booker, the Senator from New Jersey. This week’s episode of Politics with Amy Walter begins with an interview with Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s running for President. Amy speaks with Sen. Gillibrand about her views on Medicare for All and comprehensive immigration reform. They discuss the Senator’s former views on immigration and gun control, where she took a more conservative stance — she’s since apologized for those policy positions. This is the first interview with a presidential hopeful, and we plan to do as many as possible in the lead up to the Iowa Caucus. Click on the 'Listen' button above to hear this segment. Don't have time to listen right now? Subscribe to our podcast via iTunes, TuneIn, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts to take this segment with you on the go. Want to comment on this story? Share your thoughts on our Facebook page or Twitter.

This week, top U.S. and Chinese officials met again for another round of trade talks, aimed at ending the trade war. The deadline for a reaching a final deal is March 1st.  Just two days before the trade talks began this week, the US Department of Justice unveiled criminal charges against the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei. The DOJ accused the company of stealing trade secrets, committing wire fraud, breaking confidentiality agreements, and violating sanctions against Iran. Jiayang Fan, a staff writer at The New Yorker, says that the U.S. and China view this case very differently. Reaching an agreement on the trade war might be less about coming up with new rules and regulations and more about coming to some sort of a mutual understanding. Weijian Shan grew up during the Cultural Revolution and spent his childhood in a hard labor camp. Today, he is chairman and CEO of PAG, a private equity firm and author of, “Out of the Gobi: My Story from China and America.” He reflects on the current tension between two schools of thought: One which seeks to move forward and abandon the system of party control over economic activity and the other that wants to hold onto the previous system of an active government presence in the economy. Amy's Final Take: We only just scratched the surface of China’s long, complicated and often confusing relationship with the West. If we want to understand the prospects for the short term like will there be a trade deal or more tariffs — we need to understand how China views itself — with both hubris and deep seated memory of past humiliations at the hand of the west. Plus, the trade war is masking the bigger, more challenging dilemma for the U.S. and the rest of the world for the long term. What I found most fascinating in my discussion with Jiyang Fang of the New Yorker as well as my conversations with people in Beijing and Shanghai last December, is the degree to which China sees itself as a more passive — rather than active — Superpower. In other words, China wants to be successful and prosperous and powerful, but doesn’t want to play the role of enforcer of political world order. The question isn’t what happens if China fills the vacuum left by the U.S.’s diminishing role in policing the world’s political, social, moral world order. Instead, it’s what happens if China doesn't fill it. And, we are left with — a vacuum?

Like it or not, the race for 2020 has begun. Day by day the democratic field grows, with more and more presidential hopefuls throwing their hats into the ring. It’s a well-worn script. But there’s something else noticeably different this time around, the candidates are apologizing for past policy positions. This week on Politics with Amy Walter, the art of the political apology, who offers them, what makes them work and what happens when they fall flat.  We start with James Hohmann of The Washington Post who was one of the first to notice that many of the Democratic presidential candidates are starting out their races with apologies.  Stephanie Cutter is a Democratic strategist who worked on President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. She too has noticed all the apologies coming from the Democratic presidential candidates this election cycle. Ron Bonjean is a Republican strategist. He has been a spokesperson for former Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, and for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. His take is more critical of these apologies.  Marjorie Ingall is a writer and one of the founders of Sorry Watch, a site that analyzes public apologies. Of course, the other big story is the government shutdown. At this point, it’s hard to know if voters will care about it in 2020, or if anyone will take the blame and offer an apology. Amy spoke to two freshmen Democrats - from districts that flipped red to blue - about what they’ve been hearing. Congressman Antonio Delgado represents New York’s 19th congressional district and Congressman Jared Golden, represents Maine's 2nd congressional district. Both Golden and Delgado spoke of the need for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground. Amy's Final Take: Here’s my take on the raft of political apologies we’ve been hearing from 2020 Democrats. Democratic candidates running to catch up with where they think their base is. The most important question, of course, is how voters will respond. Do they punish those who strayed and reward the candidate who has been the most ideologically consistent? Or are they willing to forgive and move on? Trump was all over the map on policies and positions. That obviously didn’t prevent him from winning the nomination. As one Democratic strategist told me: Americans don’t care if you flip as long as you flip in their direction. Here’s the other thing. Voters are smart. And, perceptive. They don’t have the time to build elaborate spreadsheets that track candidate voting records and changes in policy positions. They mostly go with their gut. And, their heart. They can smell insincerity and calculation.