Despite the combination of record temperatures and declining public doubt regarding the existence of global warming, the issue of climate change received vastly different levels of attention at the recent Republican and Democratic national conventions.  In Cleveland, the issue of climate change was largely ignored.  Republican nominee Donald Trump did not even mention the issue in his acceptance speech, and other speakers either followed suit by not addressing the matter or deriding measures such as the Paris Agreement that seek to mitigate warming.  In stark contrast the Democrats regularly called for greater action to confront climate change during their gathering in Philadelphia with their highest profile speakers such as presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama both prominently citing the issue in their deliveries at the convention.

So how does the extremely varied attention to the issue of global warming at the conventions align with the rank and file members of the two parties? Four out of five Americans who identify as Democrats think that there is solid evidence of global warming with only 1 out of 20 holding the position that such evidence does not exist. Republicans are more divided, and many of them are changing their minds. They are fairly evenly split between those that think there is evidence of global warming (39%) and those who don’t (34%). The most significant change in the past year has been the number of Republicans who report that they are unsure about evidence of global warming, which doubled from 13% to 26%.  Whatever the cause of these shifting attitudes, the overall divide on the matter among the party faithful may help explain why the topic rarely surfaced at the convention in Cleveland.

So as we turn more completely to the general election in the wake of the conventions, what can be expected by way of the issue of global warming in the campaigns?  The overwhelming levels of acceptance of evidence of global warming by Democrats and independents will certainly align with the Clinton campaign’s call for increased attention to the matter.  Simply put: when it comes to public acceptance of global warming as a reality, Americans are “with her.”  However many election polls indicate the issue continues to be one of relatively low saliency, especially to Republicans. Thus, the conflict between Trump’s outright denial of the underlying problem and widespread acceptance of global warming’s existence among the American electorate may have limited effect on the ultimate decisions that many Americans will make this November.  Expect Trump to say little about the issue unless directly pressed, and when he does espouse his rejection of evidence of global warming he is likely to remain maintain confident that the vast majority of Americans who disagree with him on the matter will not punish him for his stance on election day.

      

 

 

Both parties have procedures for filling vacancies on the ticket. The Democrats had to choose a new vice presidential candidate after their 1972 convention, when Senator Tom Eagleton resigned after it came out that he had suffered serious mental illness in the past. The Democratic National Committee met in special session on August 8, 1972 just three days after George McGovern had chosen Sargent Shriver to replace Eagleton.

Here’s the legal framework.

Re-convening a convention is impractical—the National Committees decide.

If the presidential or vice presidential candidacy of the Republican Party becomes vacant “by reason of death, declination, or otherwise” that office can be filled by the Republican National Committee or the Republican National Committee can reconvene the national convention.  This process is laid out in Rule No. 9 of the Rules of the Republican Party.  The Democrats have a similar provision in Article Two of their party rules. A major difference between the parties is how the committees are composed. Whereas the Democrats award national committee members according to size, and thus big states always have more votes than small states, the RNC is composed of 3 members per state—a system that gives California the same weight as Wyoming. Therefore, if a meeting to fill a vacancy on the presidential ticket is called, the Republican National Committee members “representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.” So when voting for a presidential or vice presidential replacement, the RNC takes into account the different sizes of states.

New candidates mean new ballots.

One of the problems that filling a vacancy would create would be changing the name of the candidate for president or vice president on the ballots in all the states.  Obviously the earlier the replacement was made the better, but a replacement made closer to the election would likely not be a problem in the states that use some form of computerized voting and more of a problem in states that use paper ballots. But even if the vacancy and replacement came too late in the game to change many ballots, it wouldn’t change who the actual candidates are. Because…

Electors, not voters, make the final call.

We often forget that we do not vote directly for the man or woman who is the presidential candidate, we vote for “electors” to the Electoral College.  Surprise, surprise—these are real people.  They meet on the Monday after the second Tuesday in December in their state legislatures to cast ballots and sign their names to a paper which is sent on to the President of the Senate (the sitting Vice President of the United States.) The assumption is that these people will vote with the political party that nominated them.  Although there have been examples throughout history of “faithless electors” by and large the electors are very loyal party people. Thus the electors would vote for the new nominee even if the votes cast are for the old one whose name is on the ballot.

So there is a fairly straightforward process for replacing nominees after the convention. Obviously the parties had to anticipate the possibility that a candidate could die or somehow become disabled in between the convention and the election. (Presidential candidates are usually not young.)

However, there is no process for is revoking a nomination. And that’s because, in both parties, the quadrennial convention is the highest rule making authority.  Actions taken by the two national committees in between the conventions are subject to actions taken by the parties in convention.

Unfortunately for those Republicans wringing their hands right now, there is no way to undo what they did in Cleveland.

      

 

 

Marijuana reform is not a simple policy change, nor is it an issue focused solely on cannabis use. It affects a variety of policy areas including taxation, commerce, agriculture, criminal justice, public health, public safety, addiction and mental health, education, transportation, tourism and more. Marijuana reform isn’t just about getting high; it is a dynamic, mainstream public-policy change that voters must think through thoroughly.

We have evidence about the effects of legal, adult-use marijuana on a state. In Colorado, for instance, marijuana-related arrests—often a gateway into the criminal justice system—have plummeted. In 2015, the state raised over $130 million in tax and fee revenue from medical and recreational marijuana, and brought in over $71 million in the first five months of 2016. These funds are used to build schools, equip police departments, expand mental health and addiction services, and fund the regulatory system overseeing legal marijuana.

Legal marijuana has meant economic gains for states. An industry that used to operate in the shadows among illicit home growers or through transnational drug organizations has stepped into the light, has embedded itself in a regulatory system, and now employs tens of thousands of taxpayers. A recent study from Frontier Financials and Arcview Market Research projected a similar positive economic impact for Nevada.

It’s important, too, to face facts. If Nevada voters were to pass Question 2, legalizing adult-use marijuana, pot wouldn’t suddenly burst onto the scene in the Silver State. Marijuana is here; it is used every day by Nevadans, and except for those accessing the legal medical market, users purchase illegally from a wholly unregulated one. That means the legal market’s benefits—consistency, oversight, product testing and safety, regulatory standards and enforcement—cannot be accessed for Nevada’s many recreational marijuana users.

This is not to say that legalization comes without risk. Bumps in the road for early-adopting states have involved product consistency and potency, product testing, packaging, excessive ingestion and consumer education. In response, states such as Colorado and Washington used the regulatory system to make improvements.

If Nevada opts to legalize, it will face many of the same questions, though not necessarily the same problems. The state can strive to develop a system that does not learn on the go, but learns from the experiences of other states. Part of that policy learning has been built into Question 2 around issues of product testing, geographic access and licensure. However, when it comes to legalizing marijuana, the passage of an initiative is only the first step toward a safe and functional regulatory system. Post-passage, there is significant discretion left to regulatory agencies—namely the Nevada Department of Taxation. The regulations and guidelines developed as part of this system are essential to the manner in which the market and system will operate. They will give Nevada the opportunity to build safeguards into policy so as to avoid some of the outcomes many voters may worry about.

In a positive step, some elected officials are working toward that goal. Over the past year, I have spoken with legislators who come at this not necessarily as marijuana advocates, but forward-thinking policy makers. Their approach, which is policy intelligence at its finest, argues that “if marijuana is legalized, Nevada better be ready.” As a result, officials like state Sens. Patricia Farley and Tick Segerblom and Assemblyman Derek Armstrong have attended events to understand the issue thoroughly and hear concerns among Nevadans of all stripes, from Question 2’s most passionate supporters to its most ardent opponents.

The goal of these sessions is not to ensure Question 2 is passed, but to ensure that if it were passed, Nevada would be prepared to construct the most effective, efficient and safe system based on best practices and risk management. Such a bipartisan, bicameral effort is one to praise, particularly in an era of divisive, partisan politics and a perceived neglect of the public interest.

In the end, when it comes to Question 2, voters should do what Farley, Segerblom and Armstrong have done: learn. Consume as much information as you can about what the Nevada legalization system could look like and what the experience has been in other states, and think hard about what you see as the pros and cons of legalization. Rely on multiple sources of information, not simply the ones that reiterate your pre-existing perspective. Think broadly about the impact of adult-use marijuana—beyond joints and bongs—and about the public policy effects of reform.

And most important, if Question 2 passes and you have opposed it, you don’t throw in the towel. A system that allows legal, adult-use marijuana needs people to voice their concerns as much as it needs people to shower it with praise. Because if the system is going to work, it must at least consider and perhaps account for Nevadans’ diverse views.

      

 

 

Bloomberg did not speak about his liberal social issue of choice: gun control. Since leaving office, he spearheaded and helped fund efforts to change gun laws at the national, state and local levels and has worked to coordinate groups seeking to do the same. As Wednesday evening rolled out—with Bloomberg on the program—it seemed almost a no-brainer that he would focus his speech around gun issues.

Instead, Michael Bloomberg surprised many and went in an entirely different direction.

His speech and ultimate endorsement of Hillary Clinton signaled a force in American politics right now that few people are talking about: the leanings of the business community. Often times, the business community in the U.S. flocks to Republican candidates—especially presidential candidates. And in many cases, that position makes sense. The call for low taxes, deregulation, and a smaller role of government in the lives of Americans is red meat for corporations.

This year, something is different. The business community is worried about Donald Trump. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, typically the GOP’s best friend in Washington, has expressed dismay at some of Trump’s positions, particularly on trade. Rather than rethinking the political implications of such criticism, Trump threw barbs back at the Chamber. Shortly after the spat with the Chamber, dozens of leaders from the tech sector wrote a letter to Trump detailing how his words and positions can hurt American business interests at home and abroad.

As a businessman, one would think Trump would be the darling of American entrepreneurialism. He is one of them, and his knowledge and understanding of business, commerce, trade, finance, and the policies that affect each should position him well to understand the concerns and needs of that community. Instead, Donald Trump scares many in the business world.

Enter Michael Bloomberg. In some ways, Bloomberg is like Trump. They are both 70-something natives of the northeast who spent much of their life in New York. Both have business degrees from prestigious Ivy League Schools. Both have been Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Both are billionaires. One served as mayor of New York City and the other plasters his name on buildings across Manhattan.

It would only seem natural that Michael Bloomberg would rally behind his fellow Big Apple billionaire.

Last night, he did not.

Nor did Bloomberg stay silent, even though he openly considered running against Clinton and the Republicans with an independent bid for the presidency.

Instead, Bloomberg came out to support a different candidate from New York: Hillary Rodham Clinton. He likely spoke honestly about his own views on policy and the person he feels best qualified to do the job.

However, Bloomberg spoke beyond himself, and truly embodied the American business community. Not every businessperson dislikes Trump. Not everyone will line up at the ballot box to vote for Clinton, and many look out at the choice in 2016 and see much they dislike about Clinton’s progressive views on a variety of issues.

In many ways, Clinton is no friend to many aspects of the business community. Yet, despite those differences, Trump stirs among business leaders a different caution, one some—like Michael Bloomberg—feel the American economy cannot afford.

Bloomberg’s message was a powerful one. He began by simply saying, “It is imperative we elect Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States.” He cautioned that “[T]here are times when I disagree with Hillary Clinton.” He showed himself not to be a Clintonite, but someone with a different, non-partisan agenda. He had kind and supportive words for Clinton, but his greatest caution was reserved to eviscerate Donald Trump.

He led off with the personal, “Now we have heard a lot of talk in this campaign about needing a leader who understands business. I couldn’t agree more. I built a business and I didn’t start it with a million dollar check from my father.”

He went on, “Given my background, I will often encourage business leaders to run for office because many of them share the same, pragmatic approach to building consensus, but not all…we are only as good as how our employees, clients, and customers view us. Most of us don’t pretend we are smart enough to make every decision by ourselves…”

Then Bloomberg telegraphed his message directly to the business community: “I understand the businessman president. But Trump’s plan is a disaster in the making. He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to the economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence around the world, and make our communities less safe. The bottom line is a risky, reckless, and radical choice, and we can’t afford to make that choice.”

Donald Trump will react to Bloomberg’s message either with anger or indifference. He will cast off criticism from the business community by arguing they are owned by special interests, but Bloomberg’s endorsement and the cold shoulder from commerce should signal a deeper worry for Republicans. If forces like the Chamber of Commerce, wealthy corporate donors, and the barons of the American economy ultimately do little to assist the GOP in the pursuit of the White House, Trump’s chances of beating Clinton diminishes.

If a pro-gun control, pro-environment liberal like Michael Bloomberg turns his back on Trump, it may not mean much to Republicans. But if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the forces, businesses, and people it represents are unwilling to unite behind the Republican candidate, and if the institutional, organizational and financial forces that come through with an assist for the GOP every four years, the Trump-Pence ticket is in trouble. Last night, Michael Bloomberg delivered that message to the business community and the rest of America.

      

 

 

Still, Hillary Clinton faced a number of challenges.   The first is the inescapable reality that she was running to succeed a two-term incumbent of her own party whose administration she served as a senior official.  In a year dominated by vocal demands for change, she could not escape being the candidate of continuity.

This did not mean that she was compelled to run as the defender of the status quo, however.  She was obligated to defend the record of the past eight years, but not to claim that all the problems Barack Obama inherited have been solved.  Her task was to achieve a credible balance between continuity and change—to argue that President Obama created a firm foundation for the change we must build together during the next decade.  George H. W. Bush’s 1988 acceptance speech is a model of how this balance can be struck successfully, albeit in circumstances very different from what Hillary Clinton faces.

Her second challenge was to drive a wedge between change in the abstract, which 7 in 10 Americans favor, and the kind of change Donald Trump is offering, which is ill-informed, misguided, and much too risky to be worth the gamble—or so she must argue.

We’ve seen this before.  In 1980, Americans registered deep discontent with the direction of the country at home and abroad.  Although there was no doubt that Ronald Reagan represented a dramatic change of course, the Carter campaign kept the election close for months by contending that Reagan’s program was a leap in the dark and worse, that he lacked the temperament to be president and would place the country at risk.  It was only Reagan’s reassuring demeanor in the presidential debate that allowed him to surmount the people’s doubts about him and win a substantial victory.

Her third challenge, on which much ink has been spilled, was to begin the task of reversing negative perceptions of her character—most important, that she cannot be trusted—that have deepened during the course of the campaign at the hands of supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  This is not a task that one speech could hope to accomplish.  Indeed, her campaign manager speculated recently that the entire campaign might not suffice to do so and that people would come to trust her only when they saw her carrying out her duties as president.

Part of the problem is that Hillary Clinton is a person who values personal privacy in a confessional culture that demands self-disclosure.  To be sure, her husband’s and daughter’s convention speeches helped provided a more rounded picture of the kind of person she is.  But although she could choose to allow more of her emotions and commitments to show in her own right, she was bound to maintain a measure of reserve that is decidedly out of fashion.  Her challenge was to make a virtue of necessity by underscoring the principles (and the faith) that have guided her public life.  This strategy could also help counter a related accusation, that she is a cold-blooded pragmatist, moved by burning ambition, who lacks a moral core and changes direction in response to shifting political winds.  In the end, trust rests on authenticity.

So measured against these three core challenges, how successful was Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech?

It was not an oratorical masterpiece, but it was a sturdy, workmanlike presentation of who she is, how she thinks, and what kind of president she would be.  She acknowledged being a public servant who has always been more comfortable with the “servant” rather than the “public” dimensions of her work.  She affirmed the obvious: she is a policy wonk who sweats the details, as she insisted a president should.  She set forth her guiding principles and quoted the Methodist credo.  She praised the accomplishments of the Obama-Biden administration while making it clear that she is far from satisfied with the status quo.  She laid out her plans for building on the foundation the incumbent has created.

And she raised questions about Donald Trump that go to the core of his candidacy.  Does he know enough to be president?  Does he have any plans to fulfill his grand promises?  Is he a man of character?  And most pointedly: does he have the temperament to serve as commander-in-chief?  She quoted one of his self-congratulatory utterances—“I know more about ISIS than the generals do.”  After a pause to let his words sink in, she replied, “No, Donald, you don’t.”  One suspects that even Americans who do not support her nonetheless agreed with her.

In one of the speech’s most notable lines, she said that “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”  To drive home the point, she recalled one of the Cold War’s most dangerous moments—the Cuban missile crisis—and President Kennedy’s reflection that weak, reckless men could have dragged us into catastrophe.  The contrast she sought to underscore was clear: her cool, experienced steadiness versus Trump’s shoot-from-the hip instability.

By itself, a single speech cannot solve a candidate’s problems.  But it can set a sense of direction and mark out a way forward.  Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech was a good beginning—an honest presentation of self.  In that sense, it was completely authentic.  And authenticity is the basis of trust.

It is hard to see what else—or what more—she could have done.  Now she must ensure that her campaign drives home the message of this speech.  And then it will be up to the American people to decide whether to accept what she is offering.

      

 

 

President Bill Clinton holds the record for most wanted. Since his years in office, Clinton has given more prime time convention speeches than any recent president. He spoke in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012, and now 2016. In the traditional “former president speech,” the president touts his record, the record of his party, and the ability of the nominee to do all the good things his party has done before and more. Clinton did that in his 2000 convention speech with an entrance that was dramatic and memorable in its simplicity. As a camera followed from backstage onto the convention podium a voice simply recounted the Clinton/Gore record, a set of impressive statistics meant to boost Clinton’s vice president into the presidency.

Also in high demand at party conventions was Ronald Reagan—blessed, like Clinton, with a gift for oratory. In 1988 Reagan gave an unforgettable primetime address on the opening night of George H.W. Bush’s convention. With the words “go out there and win one for the Gipper,” George H. W. Bush got Reagan’s “third term.” There is no doubt that had Reagan remained healthy he would, like Clinton, have been featured at every Republican convention since.

Other former presidents haven’t been nearly as welcome at post-party conventions as Clinton has been. The rule of thumb has seemed to be that if you got beat badly in a re-election bid, your party doesn’t really want you around very much. Contrast Clinton’s history to that of president Jimmy Carter, a one-term president who lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Carter attended the two conventions after his presidency—1984 and 1988—but did not speak in primetime. By 2004 Carter was back at the Democratic convention, due not to his record as president but to his record as one of the best ex-presidents ever.

Similarly, neither of the Bush presidents were very welcome at their party’s next convention. The first Bush was, like Jimmy Carter, a one-term president. The second Bush did not give a major address at the 2008 convention. His party had suffered a big defeat in the midterm elections two years earlier and the nation had turned against the war in Iraq.

And in another first, the two former Republican presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush publicly boycotted Donald Trump’s convention after a bitter primary in which Trump insulted, ridiculed, and ultimately beat Jeb Bush.

But what made Clinton’s speech tonight truly historic is that he combined the traditional former president speech with the traditional “spouse” speech in which the wife tells us what a wonderful, kind and caring husband and father the candidate is.

From his very first words—“In the spring of 1971, I met a girl…” it was clear that Clinton was about to weave the story of Hillary as girlfriend, wife and mother with the story of Hillary the activist, Hillary the politician, and Hillary the change agent. But what will be remembered is Hillary the wife and mother. He told us how she looked and what she was wearing when he met her. He told us how he spent several years trying to get her to marry him and how “the third time was the charm.” He told the audience how she moved to “a strange place more rural, more culturally conservative, than any place she’d ever been.” How devoted she was to Chelsea her only child. “For the next 17 years Hillary was, first and foremost, a worrier.”

Bill Clinton’s speech was filled with the detail of ordinary, middle class American lives—soccer, volleyball, family vacations, ballet lessons. How, when they moved their daughter into college, Hillary worked hard to put lining paper in every last drawer in Chelsea’s dorm room until Chelsea had to gently tell her doting parents to leave.

Woven between the story of their marriage and family Clinton defended Hillary against the Republican’s accusations and touted her work as a Senator and as Secretary of State. Any former president speech would do that for their party’s nominee. In fact, we can expect President Obama to do just that on Wednesday night. But Clinton’s speech was also a spouse’s speech that will be remembered as humanizing, and the emotional core of the evening.

Elaine C. Kamarck is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates. She is a superdelegate to the Democratic convention.

      

 

 

• Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner, who died in a chokehold administered by a NYPD police officer in Staten Island, New York.

• Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin, who was shot to death by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida.

• Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontré Hamilton, who was shot 14 times by a police officer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

• Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis, who was shot to death after an altercation over stereo music Jacksonville, Florida.

• Lezley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown, who was shot to death by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.

• Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton, who was shot in the back in a neighborhood park in Chicago, Illinois.

• Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland, who died in police custody in Hampstead, Texas

Brookings’ Bill Galston recently penned a comprehensive report entitled “Framing the debate on criminal justice reform: What citizens and policymakers should know.”  By situating decades-long trends in crime and punishment in the appropriate historical and comparative contexts, Galston aims to provide citizens and policymakers with a framework for assessing the challenges of criminal justice reform on an evidentiary basis. This report provided the analytical basis for a series of blog posts that examine a number of issues at the heart of the Democrats’ criminal justice reform platform.

The Democratic Platform states that “research and evidence, rather than slogans and soundbites, must guide criminal justice policies.” This includes the pledge to end mass-incarceration. To understand the state of the nation’s criminal justice system and evaluate the challenges and opportunities of the proposed reform, Galston writes, it is important to first consider the magnitude of the U.S. incarcerated population. In addressing mass incarceration with evidence-based reform, Galston draws from the data to assess the scope of the prison population buildup, squaring the evidence with recent proposal for congressional reform.

The Democratic platform continues with a pledge to interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline by investing in education and jobs for justice-involved individuals. In creating educational opportunity for incarcerated students, Galston spotlights Second Chance Pell, the current administration’s experimental program that allows eligible prisoners to receive Pell Grants to pursue higher education opportunities. Citing a body of social science research on the association between education and recidivism, Galston writes that expanding educational opportunity for incarcerated students realizes the twin goal of rehabilitating individuals and fostering safe communities. With recidivism rates standing at 77 percent after five years, removing barriers to successful re-entry is a matter of paramount public safety concern.

Finally, the Democratic Party Platform pledges to rehabilitate, rather than incarcerate, non-violent drug offenders. In criminal justice reform: the facts about federal drug offenders, Galston breaks down the composition of individuals sentenced to federal prison for drug crime, concluding that fewer than half of offenders (41.4%) are involved with the organization and/ or management of drug trade: high-level supplier/ importer, organizer/ leader, grower/ manufacturer, wholesaler, manager/ supervisor. The majority (56.7%) are low-level offenders—street level dealers, brokers/ steerers, couriers, and mules—who play who play a relatively low-level role in drug distribution.

Americans are increasingly polarized on issues of police, race, crime, and incarceration. As the general election draws near and the political environment intensifies, using evidence to ground debate on criminal justice reform will be of utmost importance. A group of mothers whose children’s lives have been cut short will not ensure passage of these reforms, but tonight, the DNC will put a human face—a series of faces—on a complex set of public policies that are supported by research and bridge the partisan divide in Washington. 

       

 

 

Bernie’s supporters seemed to be everywhere inside and outside the hall. Outside the hall many insisted that they would never vote for Hillary. The makeshift signs criticizing Hillary were almost as hostile as the ones the Republicans used in Cleveland. Inside the hall the Bernie delegates were a bit more polite. Few anti-Hillary signs were in evidence but many signs urged defeat of the TPP—Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the hours ticked by towards the final speaker of the evening—Bernie Sanders himself—even the Clinton campaign got on board .Clinton whips were instructed to have everyone cheering for Bernie, don’t stay silent and stay in the hall even though it was getting late.  Hillary Clinton whips passed out Bernie signs—that the Clinton campaign had printed—and everyone held them up on cue.

The speakers before Sanders speech also stressed unity. At every turn, Clinton and Sanders supporters appeared together. At one point two comedians, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, a Clinton supporter and Sarah Silverman, a Sanders supporter, united in a bit of improv. And at the end of her clearly heartfelt speech, the highlight was Silverman turning to the audience and saying—“to the Bernie or bust people—you’re being ridiculous!”

They were followed by Cheryl Lankford, an appealing African-American widow of a soldier who died had in the war. She had spent a limited source of income on—you guessed it—Trump University.  “I was embarrassed,” said Lankford.  “He [Trump] preyed on vulnerable people like military widows…By cheating working people who had nothing to spare… What kind of man does that?” It was no accident that Lankford led the 10:00 hour when most viewers were tuning in, showing a real effort among Democrats to unite by crystallizing disagreement with the GOP nominee.

And then came Michelle Obama who gave a powerful and polished speech in which she recalled Hillary Clinton’s own behavior when she lost the nomination race to Barack Obama. “When she didn’t win the nomination eight years ago she didn’t get angry or disillusioned… She didn’t pack up and go home…What I admire most about Hillary is that she never buckles under pressure.” It was a no so subtle warning to the Sanders delegates that there are bigger things at stake in elections than political victory.

This message was repeated with force by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a darling of the political left who, in her keynote speech repeated—just to make sure everyone got it—“I’m with Hillary.  I’m with Hillary.  I’m with Hillary.”  As she tore Trump apart her refrain was constant “We’re with her.”

And so, by the time Sanders appeared on stage the message to his supporters inside and outside the hall was clear.  As he began he reminded them—“I think it’s fair to say that no one is more disappointed than I am.” And then went on to say; “Hillary Clinton must become the next President of the United States.” He was proud of the many planks he had gotten in the Democratic Party platform and listed them. But most important was his final statement; “Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight.”

The day ended on a far better note than it began on—which is likely to be the story of the week.  In contrast, the Republican split between Trump and his second place finisher, Senator Ted Cruz, was never healed—ending in an astonishing speech by Cruz halfway into the convention week where he refused to endorse Trump. Democrats are helped by the fact that, in contrast to the Republican convention, their leaders are not staying away from this convention. The Democratic stars will all be here this week, from former President Bill Clinton to President Obama. They will all be urging unity. Slowly, patiently, they are putting their party back together.

Elaine C. Kamarck is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates. She is a superdelegate to the Democratic convention.

      

 

 

Party chairs serve important roles in electoral politics, and never is that role more important than in advance of a presidential election. Party chairs fundraise, work closely with campaigns on strategy, conduct independent outreach efforts, craft effective messaging, and serve as important public surrogates on behalf of the party and its candidates. Some party chairs do this very publicly, while others more actively work behind the scenes. What a party chair cannot be, however, is a distraction. So it’s no surprise that after months of being one, the Democratic Party’s biggest distraction was ultimately shown the door.

In the tumult of this past weekend, the revelations were loud, but the silence among many party officials was deafening. The president did not put himself out there with a full-throated defense of his chairwoman—perhaps unsurprising given press coverage last year of a strained relationship between the chair and the president. You did not see the Clinton campaign step forward to protect Schultz from a rapidly growing, highly public flood of criticism. You did not see elders from the Democratic National Committee—all on their way to or already in Philadelphia for the convention—passionately calling for Schultz to stay. Nor did a powerful group of state party chairs come to her aid.

One could argue that the magnitude of the scandal meant that party officials understood Schultz could not be saved, but that is nonsense. Sanders supports are rightly angry about the email allegations—allegations that were never denied. But ultimately, if Democratic Party leadership—and particularly the president and presidential nominee—wanted Schultz to stay, she would have stayed. They didn’t.

Schultz’s dismissal—just a day before the party convention is set to begin and about 100 days before the election—signals how toxic her leadership had become. The party was more comfortable with a pre-election leadership crisis than with her leadership. For a party confident it will win the White House, hopeful it will win back control of the Senate, and wistfully thinking about large gains in the House, the Democratic Party machinery needs to work smoothly and effectively. A problem in party leadership puts those goals at risk.

Enter Donna Brazile. Brazile is a long time party insider and Clinton ally. As Vice Chair of the Democratic Party, Brazile becoming interim chair is both organizationally sensible, and functionally safe—she understands how to run a national party. While Brazile would certainly not be the first choice of the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, ABD—Anyone But Debbie—will do. Brazile will be criticized for being too much of an insider (what a party leader needs to be), too entrenched in the establishment, not progressive enough to satisfy Sanders’ supporters demands, and too close to Clinton.

However, her title is “interim chair,” and after the election a new permanent chair will be selected. The party will now avoid an effort from Schultz to stay on post-election, an additional distraction that would have created more division and strife within the party. In the meantime, Brazile’s duty is threefold. First, she must steer the party through its current scandal—almost certainly by making sure that more heads roll than just the chairwoman’s—and calming the nerves and concerns of party progressives. Next, she must work closely with campaigns and state party officials to build and execute a strategy to ensure Democrats get elected across the country. Finally, she must ensure that the party apparatus is not used simply to position eager individuals to set up their bid for the party chair come November.

Brazile has a tall order and there are frankly few people institutionally positioned to guide the party through that process. Yet, all along, she must be mindful that there are swaths of the party that still sting from the primary and hurt all the more from the email revelations. As much as Brazile and the DNC team must serve the presidential nominee and nominees down ballot, she must recognize the necessity to be “party healer” as much as “party chair.”

Over the coming six months, the Democratic Party will go through a transformation. It will have a new party leader, a new party chairman, and after the election, will likely enact dramatic changes with regard to how to nominate a president. There are many voices within the party who want a more progressive voice to lead the party after November. Some of the most progressive voices on Clinton’s VP shortlist might ultimately be well-positioned both to take over the party and steer it toward a more open embrace of progressive politics. However, regardless of the “who” there is a real attention on the “what,” and the “what” is leadership style and approach. Many Democrats want leadership that looks more like Howard Dean’s—a true commitment to a 50 state strategy that focuses as much on building state- and local-level institutions and the grassroots as it does on national fundraising. The party has grown tired of the Schultz’ leadership and organizational approaches, and while change was surely coming later in the year, the chairwoman’s exit makes such change ever more achievable.

      

 

 

When it comes to Republicans and the environment, black is the new green. In addition to denouncing “radical environmentalists” and calling for dismantling the EPA, the platform adopted in Cleveland yesterday calls coal “abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource” and unequivocally opposes “any” carbon tax.

Meanwhile, Democrats are moving in the opposite direction. By the time the party’s draft 2016 platform emerged from the final regional committee meeting in Orlando, it contained a robust section on environmental issues in general and climate change in particular. One of the many amendments adopted in Orlando contains the following sentence: “Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals.” In plain English, there should be what amounts to a tax (whatever it may be called) on the atmospheric emissions principally responsible for climate change, including but not limited to CO2.

As Brookings’ Adele Morris pointed out in a recent paper, this proposal raises a host of design issues, including determining initial price levels, payers, recipients, and uses of revenues raised. It would have to be squared with existing federal tax, climate, and energy policies as well as with climate initiatives at the state level.

But these devilish details should not obstruct the broader view: To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the platform of a major American political party has advocated taxing greenhouse gas emissions. Many economists, including some with a conservative orientation, will applaud this proposal. Many supporters and producers of fossils fuels will be dismayed.

It remains to be seen how the American people will respond. In a survey conducted in 2015 by Resources for the Future in partnership with Stanford University and the New York Times, 67 percent of the respondents endorsed requiring companies “to pay a tax to the government for every ton of greenhouse gases [they] put out,” with the proviso that all the revenue would be devoted to reducing the amount of income taxes that individuals pay. Previous surveys found similar sentiments: public support increases sharply when the greenhouse gas tax is explicitly revenue-neutral and declines sharply if it threatens an overall increase in individual taxes.

Once this plank of the Democratic platform becomes widely known, Republicans are likely to attack it as yet another example of Democrats’ propensity to raise taxes. The platform’s silence on the question of revenue-neutrality may add some credibility to this charge. Much will depend on the ability of the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee to clarify its proposal and to link it to goals the public endorses.