GOV310 – In The News: A look at national politics through the eyes of Texas, April 27, 2016

In the news.

Wasn’t in the news or American in Texas government. I’m Eric McDaniel. And I’m Jim Henson. All right. So

we’re back for another week. And so again and I’ll start off with primary.

So we had a bunch of primaries in the north east, which would which went kind of

as we expected. Hillary Clinton did very well, all of losing Rhode Island.

And then, you know, Donald Trump has had his clean sweep. But if we look at the way we look at this, we see

Hillary Clinton did extremely well in the Northeast. Yeah, very well. And it really

puts the lie. And one of the Sanders claims lies too strong a word. But, you know, Sanders, the Sanders

campaign for a long time has been saying Hillary Clinton. Yeah, she did. She’s racking up all these delegates,

but that’s because she won big in the south. Now, as it turns out, she’s

actually doing pretty well in the north. People were they were trying to discount New York. It’s her home state, et cetera, et cetera.

But now the writing’s really on the wall. There was sort of some degree

of anticipation that that’s that Sanders might reconsider and reassess

what was going to happen in the campaign. We may still see that. But the Sanders campaign

seemed to backtrack on that a little bit last night. But overall, structurally looking at this, it’s hard

to look at this and not just conclude this is really a done deal as far as Hillary Clinton

is concerned, particularly when you add in the superdelegates. She’s very close

on the Republican side. And then if you look at the you know, Trump also swept

very convincingly by large margins case. It still hasn’t been able to win a state.

And, you know, a lot of people are suggesting, look at case it can’t win in Connecticut. Where can he win? So where are we

now if we look at the Republican and Democratic delegate count? Trump well ahead. Hillary Clinton

well ahead. I think we’re still going to see a lot of maneuvering

on the Cruz and K-6 side and on the Republican side as they try to deny Trump

a majority. But he’s actually overperforming slightly from worry was a couple of weeks

ago. Yeah. I mean, the funny thing about John Case is that he’s still trailing Marco Rubio,

who has not been in the race for several months. So that’s not really good. But I guess Case is still

going out looking for the contested election with the idea that if there’s a contested election,

that engine your conviction I’m sorry, contested convention, that, you know, people really hate Trump.

People really hate Cruz. Hey, you know, so it’s you know, I’m not the one

you want to take to the prom. But I’m not the worst. So

I guess you guess he’s playing the. What is it? I guess it’s it’s. Yeah, it’s done.

It’s 12 minutes. I guess my wife calls it when you see a bunch of guys hanging around, you know, at a party

or at a bar late, you know? Yeah. It’s the last man standing strategy that enables the electorate,

which is the Republican convention will just be so desperate that they’ll just take the last guy that’s awake at the party,

you know? I don’t know. I guess he’s hoping that the Republican bench will have beer goggles.

Now now, in terms of the way that that all that you know, we saw things unfolding during

the week, we did see an interesting thing evolved in Kate between case

it and Cruz earlier this week. And it was it became more interesting to me

in terms of how the media covered it and the speed in which this thing became a huge

story and then went away. And that and the story here is that case, like in the case of King Cruz,

campaigns announced that they were going to essentially divvy up three

of the bigger contests or the major contests that are coming up after yesterday’s

primary. So Casey announced that he would abandon campaigning

any way in Indiana. The Cruz campaign said that they would not be campaigning

in Oregon and New Mexico. The idea being that you would be able to cut the

contests for the delegates, the two major candidates. But as we saw in the coverage

and it happened very quickly, the initial announcement is along the lines of this headline

Cruz case. It cut deal to undermine Trump’s nomination. And it was like a news. You know, CNN

was sending out news blasts, as were all the major outlets. It was this big deal that there was this

maneuver going on. But really within the day, first the press goes south on it and people

look and think about this and determine a not such a great deal for cases sick.

And it really just reflects their comparative advantage. And the fact that the case, a campaign has no

money. And then second, they look at the thing and say overall, it’s really just

kind of stupid. So you get campaigns on the same day, like in The New Yorker, Cruz and

K-6, sorry, plan to stop Trump. And then by the end of the day, casework

is being captured on camera saying, hey, look, people in Indiana should still vote for me. It just means

my campaign doesn’t have any money and I’m not going to campaign there. That’s all we’re really saying.

And so the whole thing goes for a major strategic move to essentially B.S.

by. The end of the day, and it’s really illustrates how rapidly the news cycle works

and how much the inside political press is hanging on these insider

process strategy stories, and it’s really not very helpful when you come right down to

it. Yeah, I mean, when I first heard the story out, I kept thinking, this sounds so unbelievably stupid

and it sounds like something you would see happening in, you know, amongst teenagers.

You know, where you call up Becky and you say, Becky, you know,

I just can’t stand Charlene. And Becky starts badmouthing Charlene. Then you find out Charlene’s they’re

on three way. You know, I’m surprised they didn’t do that. I mean, it’s it I mean, I think

that what’s going to happen is they’re going to is the three they’re gonna make a pact show up in banks for the next debate

and Trump shows up. And banks, they won’t have their. So Trump looks great. I don’t know. I don’t know what else they’re gonna do.

I mean, it comes off like it comes off like mean girls in many ways. So it just

made no sense. Like, look, I can’t beat him. You can’t beat him. Let’s team up to beat him.

Then we’ll fight each other. But at the end, you know, it didn’t look good for case because it’s like

base. What are you doing is helping the bigger bully. I’m not calling Cruz a bully, but the idea is you’re helping

the bigger the bigger person, their side. I thought it was really weak and it unraveled so quick. It was

like it started getting by 8:00. Everybody was on it about 3:00 p.m. People like this

is dead. But then he started. It is the speed with which the political press wants to break these things

on Twitter and on the Internet. You want to be the first to report it. She reported as a big story before you

actually really thought about it very much. And then the big next headline becomes, so you have the headline

that it happened and then the headline that it’s stupid. And then the headline that it actually isn’t happening very much.

It’s pretty it’s pretty pathetic. You basically, based on the press, think about the thought process,

which is problematic. Sometimes you don’t want to see other sources, just maybe sometimes you want the actual

clear answer. Okay. Not to be like the press, but the flags. Something else that probably got buried

a little in the presidential race last night, there was on the Democratic side an interesting primary

in Maryland for an open Senate seat that’s been created by

the retirement of Barbara Mikulski, longtime Democratic senator in Maryland. She’s retiring.

There was a race between Chris Van Hollen and Donna Edwards, two incumbent crew

members of Congress. Van Hollen, part of the leadership team, part of

not to overuse a word that’s been abused a lot this cycle, basically part of the Democratic

leadership and sort of part of the establishment in the party. White, male, longtime

Democratic congressman from Maryland and Donna Edwards, African-American. Not

quite as much tenure. We’re seen more from the left or progressive wing of the party.

And Van Hollen beached on Edwards very, very convincingly,

of what’s going on in the Democratic Party still. Yeah. I mean, Donna Edwards really got a push from Emily’s

List, which is a super PAC just created to specifically help women. I think it’s really

about pro-choice women get in the car and get elected. And so there’s really bit of attention there

because Van Hollen has a record of being pro-choice, of actually supporting their issues.

But Emily’s List argued that, no, it’s it’s not just the idea of substance, substantive representation.

We all see descriptive representation. And, you know, it actually is evidence to show that descriptive representation

is important. So you had this really identity fight where some stably were in line, but descriptively

were not. And it became this really big push where, you know, Donna Edwards was pushing identity politics

things and while she was able secure a seeming amount of the black vote. So as Van Hollen. So it was

very clear that this tactic really didn’t work. But it also be a sign,

really, the coalitions you see within a party where certain coalitions are trying to gain more power,

it’s going to support out the standard. When you bring when you talk about parties, they’re not just a group, people who all

think alike. It is a group of people who think we have similar interests. I may

differ from you one on these, but the few things we do agree upon were there. And so a lot of times

we’re trying to push through certain things. You have these coalitions in certain parts of the coalition want

more power than others. And so you see these these internal fights and it’s you see it’s really

being played out in presidential elections. But you also see is being played out in the congressional elections as well,

where certain members of Congress are known for specific topics are going to be supported by certain

groups and try to oust their others. So the idea that certain coalitions can gain more power within

the party with in Congress or even at the state level. So is it something you going to see? Quite

a bit. And it’s important to understand the barest coalitions that exist within parties and the various groups that are trying

to advance their interests in the parties, what they’re hoping that they can advance to the national level. That’s really one of the things that’s

distinctive about the American two party system is that the parties are not. In

commitment, there are coalitions of interest groups and different very diverse interests. It gets good. Now,

one other thing that’s interesting about it, I guess, speaking of African-American women

and identity politics. One of the stories that we couldn’t fit in last week, but that is still kind of reverberating through

social media a little bit as we as we meet this morning is changes to the U.S. monetary

system and to who appears on the on the $20 bill in particular. Yes. So

it has been decided that Harriet Tubman will be on the $20 bill, but not till 20 30.

So Harriet Tubman, as you as many of you know, was part of the Underground Railroad.

She was again famous for going specifically to Marilyn, really Deep South, but

into Maryland and helping escape slaves. So she’s referred to as the kind of

the Moses of that time. And so Tubman really point

out, because Lincoln Argo was there, no women on the $20 bill. Remember, there was kind of a vote like,

who do you put forward? People said Harriet Tubman is Harriet Tubman in many ways seen represent a change in the terms

of terms of the nation of recognizing people that have been forgotten in the past. And so

this to me, this is this is to me, this is somewhat interesting. Again, it’s not going to take effect till 20,

people like, you know, it is what it is. I mean, I think it’s just being open or overdoing political

correctness. So I guess what Ben Carson said she should be put on a $2 bill,

characteristically inventive Ben Carson solution. Yes. So it’s

my favorite was when somebody said, I’ll put up a $12 bill and then somebody merely pointed out sick. Oh,

so she’d be worth three fifths of Andrew Jackson who thought of that before? I was

like, yeah, this is getting nastier and nastier. But this is one of the major

changes we’re seeing in terms of who are identifying as our American heroes. Yeah. I mean, I think I mean,

what was one of the things that I thought was worth noticing is that while there was backlash from

some of the usual corners and, you know, you had.

You know, things like Ben Carson, isms of people coming up with, you know, odd ways to try to not

be outright opposed to it, but not really get in the spirit of the thing for the most part. This

and the other changes, they’re gonna put some of the suffragettes on on other denominations, some of them on the back of the

bill for the most part. I thought this went over reasonably well. There wasn’t

too much too much, you know, vituperative response

and there was some funny stuff. So, you know, on one blog post, we had somebody, you know, go with a much more

action oriented Harriet Tubman, which, you know, I thought was pretty funny

in the way that these things go. This was done by somebody of fairly leftist persuasion

on kind of an obscure blog. I mean, I came across it being retweeted by

somebody who’s well known in Texas for being an advocate of open carry. So that was kind of their way

of splitting the difference. Well, the lock has been that they went putting evangelical

gun toting woman on the $20 bill, which is true. You know,

at some level, what’s not to like. Yeah. OK. So given that that pop culture

connection, we also saw a couple of funny things in the last week that

had to do with the augmentation of the power of the president. Yes. Today I want

to talk about something I found very near and dear to my heart. And

while I’ve tried to deny for some time, I must agree with my Republican colleagues that

Obama has been abusing his power to a great deal. Some

of you may be aware of the fact that I’ve never seen me a year, a year and a half ago, that he used the power

of the presidency to bring in Prince for a two hour concert

in which Stevie Wonder also performed. If you don’t buy that party, private party, that’s

that’s extremely important. I was not invited. Now I was invited. I would

again not be against it, but I was not invited. And so the fact that I that

President Obama personally went out of his way to restrict my ability to see Prince Leive

is problematic. Prince had a two hour set. He also brought Stevie Wonder up there. If you don’t know, Stevie

Wonder is again my biggest advice. Get a black friend and tell you all about

that or she’ll tell you all about that. Again, I’m not just saying we only need black friends. We also need white friends. Because, you

know, I have white friends. Who are your best friends? Yes. I need somebody to talk to

the police. All right. But the key thing about it, though, is now don’t you be abuses

power there. But is also come out that he now has an

advance copy of Game of Thrones. So the story is that President Obama has the entire season.

All right. So he’s sitting there in the Oval Oval Office eating popcorn like, oh, I know what

happened to John Snow. To me, this is an atrocity. All right. Now, again,

if he calls me, says, hey, Eric, to sit there and watch the whole season with me, I’m all for it. I’ll quit my complaining.

So really, my complaint against President Obama really isn’t so much that he has

these things, but he’s not shared them with me. So, again, this is all about me. I’ll be I’ll be very open about

that. Unlike other politicians who like not all of this is principled. No, no, no. This is all personal.

I wanted to see Prince. I want to see Stevie Wonder. I want to watch Game of Thrones.

But, you know, again, he is sitting on the Iron Throne abusing his powers.

President. Essentially, the return of the imperial presidency puts a new spin on it. Bad? Very much

so. What one other story we wanted to flag a little bit before we sign

off. There was an interesting development that intersected Texas in presidential politics

earlier this week. So the two U.S. senators from Texas are John Cornyn,

who’s a longtime incumbent, first elected in 2002, had been the attorney general

of Texas, very much a kind of rising insider from the days

of the rise of the Republican Party to dominance in Texas. And, of course, Ted

Cruz now surprisingly successful in many people’s eyes in

the presidential contest. Now, when Cruz got elected to the Senate, he was elected very

much as an outsider, as a Tea Party candidate, somebody who was very critical of

how business as usual, quote unquote, was conducted in Congress. So he went to the Senate

and frankly, immediately earned the dislike of his colleagues and a number of ways

through both personality, political approach and things he did substantively and procedurally.

So there’s always been a lot of tension from between he and Senator Cornyn. Cornyn is a

is a kind of a consummate insider. Now, he’s a member of the Senate leadership. High ranking member

in part because he’s been there so long, in part because he’s worked well to work effectively

to become a member of the leadership, particularly once the others. The other senator from Texas,

retired Kay Bailey Hutchison. Cruz has been

stumped mostly implicitly, but sometimes explicitly critical of Cornyn. Cornyn,

for the most part, has held his tongue, kept his head low and

not wanted to to rouse the ire of the Republican base that is so

supportive of Cruz. But also he’s in there, he’s doing his job. You get the sense he understands

as an outsider, an insider, good cop, bad cop, and he’s kind of played along. Well,

earlier this week, there was a noticeable change, particularly given how prominent Cruz is.

Cornyn was given an interview with somebody and they asked him about the difference in styles

between Cornyn and Cruz. Now, he could have very much said, well, you could have fudged it. We’re different guys.

We came of age at different times politically. We have different interests, et cetera. Instead,

he basically said, well, the differences. Ted Cruz came to Washington because

he wanted to run for president. That’s a pretty big diss on your own colleague and again,

echoed through the press. Not a huge story of policy import, but pretty telling

that Cornyn has kind of had it and that there are limits to the degree to which he will follow party

loyalty and support. Cruz. Yeah, this is you know, we can say a shade thrown or

all kinds of other things. But it’s but it’s one of things that’s part of this narrative about Ted Cruz, where

he’s not liked by his colleagues. And, you know, I think, you know, this is this is

problematic in many ways because while he’s working to become president, you’re and he is

appealing to a large portion of public, you’re seeing a large number of elites basically say, look, this guy is horrible

to work with, which raises questions about what happens if he actually is elected or if he isn’t elected.

What happens when he goes back to the Senate? Is he just basically to be that, you know, the crotchety

old guy, you know, in the Senate who just complains about everything? So I guess the Bernie Sanders

of the right. I don’t know. But the idea is this and this is this is problematic. I don’t think Ted Cruz

is as bad as we paint him as we paint him to be. But the problem is, once people

get hooked on this one story about Ted Cruz, they they’re not going to let it go and so be it

or see what he does to heal the relationships, because, again, it’s start to look more like sort of look

less like a Senate, more like an episode of love and basketball. Well, you know, that also connects in a good way

with our earlier discussion of parties and coalitions in many ways. Cornyn

has always been much closer to the business interest in the party,

less close to the kind of grass roots, more ideologically conservative groups that

have really embraced Cruz. So it is another glimpse, not just about the personality difference,

but also I mean, that’s clearly there and the style difference, but also this coalitional

politics that are really very pronounced in the Republican Party right now. So there’s a

bit of self-interest in that. On the note of self interest, before we go, I also want to remind

people that if you’ve enjoyed this online course you like, the online experience should think about summer school,

about your and you’re thinking about summer school, should think about the online courses at the College of Liberal Arts

is going to offer. We’re gonna have several online courses formatted particularly

for summer. So there’ll be similar to this class and that they’ll have roughly weekly deadlines.

You can do the work at your own pace, but not fall behind. And if you’re taking three 10

now, which you obviously are, you can also find two three twelve’s one on foreign

policy top by professors Mozer and McDonald, a good class,

also a drill down into Texas government and politics that I produced

most of the stuff for. But there’s lots of guest videos to look at me the whole time.

Interviews with players in the political system, lots of interesting interactive stuff, much more of

a kind of insider’s view of Texas government and politics. And since you have the Texas politics

tax that you paid for in this class, we use that text with some additional stuff.

But your your purchase of that text will also carry over into the summer.

So we’ll be offering those courses both first and last and second session. There’s lots

of other courses, eco classics, history, some of which carry flags. So have

a look. You’ll find them on the liberal arts page or on a page in liberal arts or you’ll find

them listed at the registrar. So, you know, have at it. Yeah. So

wrap this up. Oh, I got one I want to say. Give us more than. Yes, give us a. Yeah. These classes are really

great. First what. These classes are really great. These are that one of the greatest things I’ve ever seen.

You know, I I weep at how pitiful I am compared to them.

But she’ll meet you in. We’ll be doing the Three Tenors. We’ll go to three. And if you like this. Yes. If you’d like.

So we’ll have a 310 carrying over the summer from both summer sessions.

So if you’re like this class, tell your friends that we’re doing it.

And so, you know, we’d love to see you over the summer. And you don’t have to be in Austin to take them there completely online.

So even the testing will be online with some fancy proctoring to help support

academic honesty. That’s right. Academic on us is what we’re all about. Right. So give it a look.

This ain’t UCLA. But I want to. I wanted to send a congratulations to Miss

Kaitlin Jones, who won the 2016 Miss Quintessential. And you also think the Brothers of

Theta chapter will make a sci fi fraternity corporative putting on a wonderful miss quintessential pageant.

But just in case you get confused, even though I was surrounded by purple and gold, I look beautiful,

just fabulous in my black and old gold. Again, if you don’t know what that means, get a black friend.

But that’s all we have for this week. You all have a good week and see you next week. And so long, Prince.

Electric word, life building forever. That’s a mighty long time. But I mean that.

The FEMA.

The government 310 in the news podcasts is hosted by doctors Jim Hansen and Eric.

And it’s produced by the Liberal Arts Ideas Development Studio and the Department of Government and the College

of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin.