Episode #312: After 232 Years, It’s Time

The skirmish over whether a woman can beat President Trump in November that we saw in last week’s Democratic debate has not abated.  It’s an argument that goes beyond whatever was said between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.  But party unity didn’t get a shot in the arm by the recent reminder from Hillary Clinton that she has yet to forgive Sanders for what he did in 2016.  Debbie Walsh of Rutgers University tries to put things in perspective.

The Supreme Court is taking up the issue of “faithless electors” — those presidential electors who are pledged to vote for the candidate that wins their state but who sometimes votes for whichever candidate he or she decides upon.  Five Clinton and two Trump electors voted for someone else in 2016, but few people paid any notice because Trump’s electoral college lead over Clinton was substantial.  Amy Howe, an expert on the Court, talks about the cases before the Justices and the possible consequences should these electors alter the result of a presidential election.

And we talk to one such “faithless elector” — Mike Padden of Washington State who, in 1976, ignored his pledge to vote for President Gerald Ford (who carried Washington that year) and instead voted for Ronald Reagan.

Music used in this podcast:

Why Can’t We Be Friends? by War

Run the World (Girls) by Beyoncé

Change Your Mind by ELI

You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away by The Beatles

Change Your Mind by The Killers

3 thoughts on “Episode #312: After 232 Years, It’s Time”

  1. The consensus reached between Ken Rudin and Debbie Walsh of Rutgers that Bernie and/or his campaign are basically misogynist was based on fallacies and illogic, and was deeply disappointing. When Ms. Walsh said, “The term ‘Bernie bro’s’ didn’t just come out of nowhere, you know” — that same phrasing could be used to justify and validate any stereotype you care to name, and if it had been applied to ‘welfare queens’ or a million other wrong, cruel stereotypes, both Ken and Ms.Walsh would have jumped on it and critiqued it for the illogic and stereotype that it so plainly is — but in Bernie’s case, it was embraced. That is journalism a la Fox News, and should be far beneath you. Likewise, no mention was made of Hillary’s (mis)handling of the women on her campaign who were abused by powerful men who were also on her campaign — and Hillary told them (the women) to be quiet. Somehow you portray Bernie as the “powerful establishment white male” — and fail to mention that Hillary was the establishment candidate, with mountains of support which Bernie lacked. I don’t wish for you to be pro-Bernie, but these lies of omission add up to very shoddy journalism. The concept of “Fake News” is a conspiracy theory, but as Debbie Walsh says, “It doesn’t just come out of nowhere” — it’s biased, one-sided pieces like this which lend credence to the concept.

    I”ve listened to The Political Junkie for many years, and I am saddened to level this critique today.

    Reply
  2. Ken, I love listening to your podcast and your interviews with All Sides with Ann Fisher. But I was disappointed to hear you say you thought it was “terrible” when the debate moderator asked Warren to explain what she said after Sanders said “a woman couldn’t be elected president.” The moderator was either BELIEVING THE WOMAN, which seems to upset you, Ken, over believing the man. And/or she was giving Warren a chance to recant or clarify her assertion that Sanders had said that. Please explain why the moderator should have taken Sanders’ word as truth but not Warren’s????

    Reply
    • Donna, I appreciate your question. I didn’t say the moderator should have taken Sanders’ word over Warren’s. And it’s not that I was “upset” she believed the woman over the man. It was how it was said. The moderator, CNN’s Abby Phillip, ended her chat with Sanders by saying so, you are standing by your statement that you didn’t say a woman couldn’t be elected president. And Sanders said yes. In the next breath, Phillip said to Warren, so, how did you react when Sanders said a woman couldn’t be elected president? That was embarrassing and unprofessional, and the audience knew it. She completely dismissed what Sanders said; it was almost as if he never denied it. What she should have done was say to Warren, so, he denies it. Are you sticking with it? Instead, she put it to her as if it were an established fact, literally seconds after Sanders denied it. I don’t care whom she believed, and I don’t even know whom I believe. Again, I never said Phillip should have taken “Sanders’ word as truth but not Warren’s.” She basically ignored what Sanders said and asked the question of Warren as if her side of the argument was fact.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00