Mediaboss Marketing

Barack Obama has a favorite saying on the campaign trail: Dont boo vote.

And young protesters, galvanized by police brutality and a rash of political disappointments, seem to be sketching out a present-day response:

Sure, maybe. But first, some well-directed fury.

Im tired. Im literally tired. Im tired of having to do this, said Aalayah Eastmond, 19, who survived the 2018 massacre at her high school in Parkland, Fla., became a gun control advocate, saw many legislative efforts stall and is now organizing protests in Washington over police violence against fellow black Americans.

Ms. Eastmond could be forgiven, she suggested, for doubting that the electoral system would meet the moment on its own: We do our job, she said, and then we dont see the people we vote in doing their job.

As nationwide demonstrations continue to simmer, interviews with millennial and Generation Z protesters and activists across racial lines reflect a steady suspicion about the value and effectiveness of voting alone. Their disillusionment threatens to perpetuate a consistent generational gap in election turnout, hinting at a key challenge facing Joseph R. Biden Jr. The former vice president, who announced Friday evening that he had earned a majority of delegates in the Democratic primary contest, has struggled to generate youth enthusiasm despite the demographics broad disapproval of President Trump.

To some degree, this dynamic has figured in political fights across the decades: Voters are disproportionately old; marchers are disproportionately young. (Even in the 2018 midterms, when youth engagement spiked compared with four years prior, turnout registered at about 36 percent for voting-age citizens under 30 and nearly twice that for those 65 and up, according to Census Bureau data.)

But the frustrations of todays younger Americans also speak to the particular conditions of the era, with a preferred candidate in the last two Democratic presidential primaries, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, falling short twice and a sense that those in office have done little to stem a flood of crises.

The deaths of black people at the hands of law enforcement. The relentless creep of climate change. Recurring economic uncertainty this time amid a pandemic exacerbated by missteps across the federal government.

In an ideal world, all of these issues would be solved by going out and voting, said Zoe Demkovitz, 27, who had supported Mr. Sanderss presidential campaign, as she marched against police violence in Philadelphia. I tried that. I voted for the right people.

And this, she concluded, adding an expletive, still happens.

Democratic leaders are plainly aware of this perception and mindful that a stronger showing from Hillary Clinton among young voters four years ago probably would have turned her fortunes.

Some have moved in recent days to explicitly urge protesters not to overlook November.

In a post on Medium, Mr. Obama disputed the notion that racial bias in criminal justice proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time.

Eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices, the former president wrote, italicizing liberally, and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.

Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, suggested that protests were so valuable in part because they helped introduce new leaders to old systems. At 79, Mr. Clyburn still delights in reminding audiences that he met his wife in jail after a civil rights march in 1960.

I stayed involved, Mr. Clyburn said, and Im now in the United States Congress.

Some younger protesters do not dismiss this prospective path or the wisdom of voting, however grudgingly.

But they say several of the most stinging policy letdowns in recent years have come after nominal election successes.

In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio won office in 2013 with a pledge to dramatically reform the citys police culture, memorably showcasing his biracial family throughout his campaign. Through a recent stretch of demonstrations that included the arrest of his own daughter, Mr. de Blasio has largely defended the departments approach despite news accounts and videos of officers responding to peaceful protests with often striking aggression.

The mayors transformation has been so pronounced that I have trouble wrapping my head around it, said Ritchie Torres, 32, a Bronx city councilman now running for Congress.

For younger New Yorkers, he said, it was a reminder that electing ostensibly like-minded leadership was not enough. Young people rightly and clearly see the limitations of voting, he said, calling it a necessary but insufficient condition for political engagement.

Even Mr. Obamas White House tenure, made possible in large part by his strength with younger voters, has come in for mixed appraisals.

Evan Weber, 28, the political director for the Sunrise Movement, a group of young liberal environmental activists, cited the dissatisfaction among progressives his age over Mr. Obamas record on financial reform and some climate issues. People are turning to protest out of necessity, Mr. Weber said. We have grown up millennials and especially Generation Z with a system that has either delivered too little or not at all.

People of color have signaled a particular weariness with the implication that voting is a cure-all, especially given the scale of voter suppression efforts and other barriers to the ballot.

Jess Morales Rocketto, 33, a progressive strategist and former campaign aide to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, said the standard get-out-and-vote message tended to sound most palatable to people who were planning to vote anyway.

What were really wrestling with is not whether or not people vote but whether people believe institutions matter, she said. That disillusionment is actually about the fight for a generation of civic participation.

On that score, some academics say, the protests might help.

Daniel Q. Gillion, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, said that his research detailed in a recent book, The Loud Minority, about the importance of demonstrations since the 1960s showed that areas with meaningful protest activity often saw increased turnout in subsequent elections.

Whether younger Americans find a candidate to believe in is another matter. Jason Culler, 38, who also attended the march in Philadelphia, predicted that the current election cycle would not produce leaders who adequately reflected the crowds filling the streets.

Not this election, not the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, he said. These people dont represent us, thats why were out here still fighting the same thing.

If nothing else, such persistence has proved a point, especially for certain participants.

Ms. Eastmond, the Parkland survivor, recalled the skepticism two years ago that she and other teens stirred to action by the shooting would remain as engaged in political activism as the months passed.

She does not hear those doubts so much anymore.

People were questioning: A lot of the people in that movement, where are they now? she said. Im here. Im just one person, but Im here.

Jon Hurdle contributed reporting from Philadelphia, and Isabella Grulln Paz from New York.

Visit link:
Young Protesters Say Voting Isnt Enough. Will They Do It Anyway? - The New York Times

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy

President Donald Trumps most dangerous adversary in the November election is not Joe Biden.

Its Donald Trump.

Trump just cant resist shooting himself in the foot. (Perhaps his bone spurs are acting up.) His wholesale negativity, impulsiveness, inattention to detail and love of personal insults, taunts and conspiracy theories aimed at nearly everybody and everything have eroded his chances to win reelection.

Obviously, he is losing women, African-Americans and immigrants, particularly Hispanics. Even younger evangelicals are having their doubts.

But his mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic and the general chaos of his presidency have alienated the particularly vulnerable elderly (23% of voters), who yearn for safety and stability.

His base is estimated to be 40% to 43% of voters. So he needs non-Republicans (read disenchanted Democrats), independents and other swing voters who helped him win in 2016.

But last time, voters who disliked his opponent, Hillary Clinton, helped tip the scales. Biden seems far more popular than Hillary. So, to coin a phrase, 2020 is a whole new ballgame. Or, as former Rep. David Trott, R-Mich., has said, 2016 was a perfect storm, meaning unlikely to reoccur.

Gordon Rowley, Wakefield

MLK would endorse message of Black Lives Matter

Since the death of Martin Luther King the white establishment has very effectively bastardized his message.

The message, often kept under wraps, is that racism, militarism and capitalism are the root causes of the darkness that has engulfed the United States of America. Until we address these issues there will only be more darkness.

King also spoke of urban riots that have and continue to engulf our country when he quoted Victor Hugo who said: "If a soul is left in the darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness."

King also spoke to non-violence when he said "If you want Peace then work for Justice."

He also said, "Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of Justice."

Martin Luther King's message knows no time period, and if he were alive today he would be in the streets in the name of "Black Lives Matter." He would be calling out to the powers and principalities that spread the darkness. He would be shining his light.

Just as Martin Luther King, ours is to cast out this darkness. It's not too late, but only if we are willing to act.

Martin Lepkowski, Wakefield

Threat to teachers jobs is being forgotten

Hundreds of public school teachers across Rhode Island are facing layoffs as the coronavirus pandemic threatens to wreak havoc on state and local budgets, and state leaders are offering few clues on how much aid districts should expect for the fiscal year that begins next month.

These are the people who sacrifice their lives for our children and they can expect no help at all from the inept individuals who run the state.

We have a governor who praises demonstrators for not rioting, an inept mayor who cant control his own city, and United States senators and congressmen who are hiding.

It seems that these people are able to provide funds for everyone else in this state except for the people who can help control our future. And judging by what has taken place this past week, we need our teachers very badly. Our so-called governor and the rest of our local political leaders should be ashamed of themselves, and by the way, where is the outcry for justice for these wonderful people? Do they have to take to the streets looting, burning and attacking police officers to be heard?

It seems that is how we express our feelings today.

John Cervone, North Providence

Provocateurs, including Trump, to blame for violence

Much of the violence accompanying the legitimately angry demonstrations protesting racial discrimination in major cities across the country is attributed to hooligans and provocateurs, who undermine the legitimacy of otherwise peaceful, albeit angry, demonstrations. I experienced this in the 60s, participating in multiple demonstrations that were co-opted by extremist fringe elements, to the point that I became reluctant to participate in mass demonstrations.

However, provocateurs in particular typically operate under a cloak of secrecy not so our provocateur-in-chief, President Trump. His actions throughout this crisis have not only lacked compassion for the victims of discrimination and empathy for the anger of the African-American community, but have shamefully inflamed tensions. Why are our elected officials, especially Republicans, so accepting of his divisive behavior?

Martin Huntley, Providence

Woodrow Wilson doesnt deserve a glowing tribute

After watching the events of rage which have been unfolding over the past few days in America and then reading Daniel Harrington's glowing My Turn commentary on former President Woodrow Wilson (Woodrow Wilson radically transformed the nation, May 31) it led me to wonder just what kind of a rock has Mr. Harrington been living under?

Perhaps Wilson was not the most virulent racist to ever occupy the Oval Office but he's in the top two. When Wilson took office in 1912 there were numerous federal positions being held by African Americans. They were quickly cashiered. If in fact Wilson did not give the order to fire them he was most certainly complicit as most of them were terminated. In one instance a black man who held a critical job and could not be fired was forced to work in a cage so no white worker had to come in contact with him.

It was not only blacks Wilson despised. He also described Poles, Hungarians and Italians as "men of the lowest class." I guess Wilson must have thought so little of Jews and the Irish that they weren't even worth a scant centimeter of his bile.

Wilson was a true "Son of the South." He was a descendant of a Confederate soldier. When he was elected president there was jubilation in Dixie and huzzahs of "the South shall rise again."

Is Mr. Harrington aware that at Wilsons alma mater, Princeton, students have been agitating for his name to be removed from all buildings on campus? I am not attempting to be a revisionist and try to rewrite history but at some point, the sheet has to be taken off the looking glass and historical figures must be seen warts and all.

We are all entitled to our opinion on what constitutes a great man, but how prophetic the headline over Mr. Harrington's article "Woodrow Wilson radically transformed the nation."

Charles Sinel, Pawtucket

Read more from the original source:
Letters: Trump's worst adversary; MLK and Black Lives Matter; and more - The Providence Journal

Over three years into his tenure in the nation's highest office and five months before the country weighs in on his re-election, President Donald Trumps struggles with older women, an important voting bloc for November, appear more acute in the middle of twin crises.

In 2016, Trump tilted the election in his favor after narrowly winning a handful of battleground states, and partly by performing well among white women - and older voters - even against the first-ever female nominee. Four years ago, although Hillary Clinton won women overall by a 13-point margin, Trump only lost women over 45 by 3 points (47%-50%), and won over both white women and voters over 45 with 52%, according to national exit poll data.

But this cycle, Trump is not only trailing Biden nationally by 10 points among registered voters in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released earlier this week, hes also seeing waning support among women over 45. Biden is now leading Trump among this group by 17 points, compared to 9 in March, in the latest poll.

Lara Trump gives an interview after a gathering of Donald Trump for President Women for Trump coalition kickoff in King of Prussia, Pa., on July 16, 2019.

Its a hurdle that is emerging as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the nations seniors and Trump's "law and order" vision of leadership is up against its most critical test of his presidency as the country is engulfed by nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality.

In follow-up interviews with nearly a dozen women over 45, who span the ideological spectrum and geographic map, that participated in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, including some who formerly voted for Trump the first time around, most are turned off by his abrasive demeanor, divisive rhetoric and the tweets.

"I voted for Trump. I did not care for Hillary. She was just not the role model I wanted for the first woman president," said Shannon Gridley, 78, from Orlando, Fla. Orlando sits along Floridas crucial I-4 corridor in central Florida, which is often seen as a bellwether in the battleground.

A path to victory for Trump this cycle is expected to run through Florida, where older voters have an outsize role in the electoral fortunes of candidates in the state. In 2016, Trump won Florida by just over 1 percentage point.

Gridley, who said she identifies along the "moderate avenue," has been voting since the 1960s, starting with President John F. Kennedy. She is currently a registered Democrat and is voting for Biden in the fall, but has historically voted for Republicans far more, she said.

Behind her 2016 decision, as she put it, was the notion that as an outsider, Trump might "shake things up."

"Well, by god, he has shook things up, that is for absolutely sure," she said. "He disappointed me pretty soon. I didn't like the way he talked. I didn't think he was professional. I did not think he was presidential. I just haven't agreed with much of anything that he's done."

Another female voter, Donna, who declined to share her last name, from Springfield, Mass., which sits in the western portion of the state, told ABC News shes voted Republican in the last two presidential elections, saying of 2016, "I was not happy four years ago with either of the candidates, but Hillary Clinton was the worst of the two."

"I voted for Donald Trump and hoped that he would rise to the occasion," she said. "Obviously, he hasn't. He is a petulant, junior high mentality candidate, and I feel that our country can do far better than that."

She is now backing Biden in November, she told ABC News.

Elizabeth Vath, too, voted for Trump in 2016. But the 75-year old Republican from Glen Mills, Pa., is siding with Biden, she said, "because of the fact that I didn't see Trump do what he promised to do. I voted for Trump because I thought he was going to do something better for our country."

"Hes lying," she continued. "He doesnt keep his promises. He curses and he swears and the language just turns me off. Im sorry, but I was never brought up that way."

Pennsylvania was one of the three key battlegrounds that put Trump over the top last cycle, where he defeated Clinton by the slimmest of margins - 0.7 percentage points. It is also home to a majority female population, and one that also skews older than the country, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau compiled by the Pennsylvania State Data Center at Penn State Harrisburg.

Even a supporter of the president, who is voting for him in November, said she is repelled by what she sees as his immaturities and offensive language.

"I personally cannot listen to him on TV. There are a lot of times I would like to smack him and say, you know, your mother should have taught you better than to talk like that," Suzanne Sloane, 53, from Kalamazoo County, Mich., told ABC News in a follow-up interview. "I cringe ... I want a person who can stand up and support our values and support our country without getting down to a five-year-olds level of name-calling."

Demonstrators take a knee, June 2, 2020, in Philadelphia, during a protest over the death of George Floyd.

The Trump campaign did not respond to ABC News multiple requests for details about their strategy to bring this key demographic into the fold for the upcoming election.

Last year, the Trump campaign made its first major push for its "Women for Trump" coalition in August with a string of cross-country events to mobilize suburban women in key battleground states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The campaign launched the coalition focused on courting the women vote in July 2019.

Suburban women, in particular, represent a key voting demographic that was once the bedrock of the GOP but has been shifting away from the party in the Trump era.

In the 2018 midterms, when Democrats picked up 40 seats and the House majority, women accounted for 53% of voters, voting for Democratic House candidates by 60-39%. In 2019, in statewide and local contests in Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa and Pennsylvania, Republicans saw an erosion of support among suburban voters - and women in particular - allowing Democrats to overcome the allure of Trumpism. And the results were costly for Republicans.

This opposition could continue into 2020, and would be particularly damaging in battlegrounds across the electoral map, where a small shift in support could sway a state.

With dual crises now at the forefront of Trump's presidency, most of the women over the age of 45 that ABC News spoke with in follow-up interviews view the unfolding events as ripely exposing the unsettling and disqualifying aspects of Trump.

"His whole way to address the COVID-19 has been, excuse me, a s--- show," Donna said.

"Trump has been doing a rotten job with health care as well as with the epidemic. We can only pray and hope and vote," Vath said.

Pamela Cooper, 62, from Kannapolis, N.C., which sits in the suburbs of Charlotte, is supporting Biden in the general election, after having voted Republican up until Trump, because she said, "I think that he is definitely promoting racism."

"The pandemic is scary enough without the rioting," she said. "The only way to fight all of this is with love and understanding and compassion...violence against violence never works. These are just scary, scary times and we need a new leader."

Lynda, a voter who decided not to give her last name, from Kent County, Mich., which covers Grand Rapids and its suburbs and sided with Trump by a three-point margin in 2016, said she is "not impressed with Trump. Ive got bitter feelings towards Trump. Im not happy with the way he has dealt with his power and neglected the American people."

He is sowing division, she said, at a time when the country is looking for comfort and solidarity.

"He's supposed to be uniting everybody, not dividing everybody. He is supposed to be taking care of us," she said. "I think Trump should be more focused on the White House, the American people and leave Twitter alone."

But the election still all comes down to Trump.

For the most part, the interviews with these women revealed that many see the contest as a referendum on his administration and his leadership, with most saying their decision is fueled by, as Donna said, "a push against Donald Trump," rather than a pull towards Biden.

"If Biden is the only Democrat, I will vote for Biden," Lynda said. "I wish I had another option but I don't at the moment."

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden poses for a picture with Pastor of the Bethel AME Church, Rev. Dr. Silvester S. Beaman and attendees during a visit to the Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Delaware, June 1, 2020.

"There's nothing in particular about Biden," said Sarah Schrock, a self-identified independent that is currently registered as a Democrat to vote this year, from Lucas County, Ohio. "Hes the lesser of two evils."

"Id rather vote against Trump than sit out," she added.

One voter from Pima County, Ariz., Ruby, who refused to give her last name, casted her choice to pick Biden as binary, saying there is "only one reason" before adding, "Im voting against Trump." She does not identify with either party.

Rorie Baker, 70, from Orange County, Calif., which was a GOP stronghold in blue California until 2018, is casting her ballot for Biden since "hes the absolute opposite of Trump. Trump is an unbelievably incompetent man. He has no couth, no class."

But regardless of the outcome of the election, some of the women are deeply frustrated by the stark partisanship and discord rippling through the country.

"I'm more of a moderate," Sloane, the Trump-backer, said, "and I get left out."

"I just wish we had better choices," she lamented of 2020, before returning to 2016. "I'm frustrated that when the Republicans had 20 people to put out there, you had 20 people and no choice."

ABC News' Will Steakin contributed reporting.

More:
'A push against Donald Trump': Why some older women are turning away from the president - ABC News

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

President Trump holds a Bible in front of boarded up St John's Episcopal Church after walking across Lafayette Square from the White House on June 1. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

For any other politician, President Trumps response this week to a question about his faith would have inspired cringing from religious Americans.

During an interview being conducted by Sean Spicer, his former press secretary asked if Trump had grown in his faith.

I think maybe I have, from the standpoint that I see so much that I can do, Trump replied. Ive done so much for religion. The Johnson amendment. Getting rid of Mexico City. Nobody thought any of this stuff would happen. Two Supreme Court justices."

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Todays most popular stories on The Washington Post

By the way, he continued, if the other side and I call them the radical left because, [former vice president Joe] Biden has gone way left but he doesnt know where he is. But hes surrounded by people that are put there that are serious radical left. You wont have a Second Amendment. You wont have religious liberty. You wont have anything.

That, in a nutshell is the case Trump makes to conservative religious voters. They know that his life isnt an ideal model of their values and he knows that they know that. But he also knows that continuing to deliver conservative judges, a platform for the antiabortion movement and a focus on empowering religious institutions and actors will endear them to him.

He knows, too, that evangelical voters would prefer an occasionally religious president who consistently prioritizes their concerns to a pious Democrat whos more socially liberal. Its important to note that white evangelical Protestant Americans arent unusually supportive of Trump simply because of religion. Its also because theyre heavily Republican, as Pew Research Center data released last year indicate. Among white evangelical Protestants, 77 percent identify as Republican or Republican-leaning a remarkably dense overlap of religion and party.

On Thursday, the New York Times reported a sudden sign of shakiness within this group. Polling from PRRI released this week indicates that approval of Trump among evangelical voters has fallen nearly 20 points since March. Among white Catholics, the decline has been nearly as sharp.

As the Timess Jeremy Peters notes, thats significant. An analysis of the 2016 electorate completed by Pew shows that white evangelicals and white Catholics were more supportive of Trump than any other religious group. He won the latter group by 33 points and evangelicals by 61 points over Hillary Clinton.

More important, Pews data suggest that more than half of the votes Trump received that year came from voters who fit into one of those two groups. A fifth of his support was from white Catholics. Fully a third was from white evangelical Protestants.

Erosion in his approval among those two groups, then, is significant. Lose 20 percent of his support from black Protestants and hes losing well, we dont know since his support from that group was hard to measure in the first place. Lose 20 percent of his Catholic support, though, and hes risking 4 percent of his overall support.

There are some important caveats, though. One is that the decline since March measures current approval relative to a recent peak. PRRI also has data from 2019; comparing the most recent evangelical support to that figure shows a drop of only 2 points among evangelicals. Among Catholics, the drop is still 12 points a less problematic drop, but still a problematic one.

To Trumps point, theres also the question of what a drop in approval from these core constituencies means. If it means they are slightly less enthusiastic about voting for him than they might otherwise be, so be it. A vote is a vote, even a grudging one. As weve noted, Trumps 2016 victory can be attributed to voters who disliked both him and Clinton but voted for him anyway. An evangelical whose view of Trump is lukewarm but votes for Trump is a vote for Trump. That evangelical is not likely to demonstrate that lack of enthusiasm by voting for Biden.

The problem with a drop in approval is less losing votes to Biden than losing votes because people stay home. The opposite of wanting to vote for someone isnt necessarily voting for his opponent; it can also be not voting at all. Thats the concern Trumps team should worry about. Lose 10 percent of Catholic voters who simply dont feel motivated to vote at all, and youre still shedding 2 percent of your 2016 electorate.

This is the part of articles about general election polling in which we note that there are months to go and billions of dollars still to be spent. If the election were held today, polling suggests that Biden could win by a double-digit margin nationally, the sort of margin which makes slight erosion from a religious demographic irrelevant.

That said, the poll above does suggest a few ways in which Trump might want to spend those months and those dollars: ads highlighting the message he offered Spicer.

See the article here:
A third of Trump's support in 2016 came from evangelicals and he hasn't lost them yet - MSN Money

One evening earlier this year, an old friend and adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton sat down with the former president for dinner at a quiet Manhattan restaurant. Bill, the friend says, looked thinner and more tired than he had in some time. He is 72 now, 15 years on from open-heart surgery and the complications that arose from it. He was, the friend says, a "bit sad, and more than a bit angry."

The 2020 race for the White House was underway, and not many of the ever-expanding field of Democratic contenders had phoned him or come calling to discuss what it is like to run a presidential campaign. A lot of the contenders seemed to be scrambling to the left to satisfy the progressive wing of the party "and the angry Twitter-verse," as Bill's dinner companion puts it. "This guy's political brain is still sharpamong the sharpest in the partyand he worries that [the Democratic Party] may be frittering away the chance it has to beat Trump next year."

That's where the anger comes in. And the sadness? "He realizes, politically, he's in exile, and to some extent Hillary is too. This is a tough time for them."

For reasons both political and personal, Bill and Hillary, the most powerful couple in the modern era of American politics, stand on the sidelines as one of the most important election cycles for Democrats unfolds. For the Clintons, this is the year the might-have-beens become especially painful. Just 80,000 votes in three traditionally Democratic states deprived them of the restoration: a return to the White Housewith Hillary now "the Big Dog"and a recapture of the leadership of their party.

They have been cast aside for obvious reasons. Democratic politics have changed markedly since the Clintons ruled Washington. The economic successes of the era were rooted in centrist policies: a balanced budget (agreed to in compromise with Republicans) and a commitment to free trade exemplified by Bill's signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, in both parties, there is not much of a constituency for either. As president, Bill signed a crime bill that did, over time, result in lower crime rates. But progressives say it was partly responsible for the increase in incarceration rates for African Americans and Latinos ever since it was passed.

None of that, of course, is at the heart of Bill's exile. In the #MeToo era, the personal has become the political. And his history of skirt chasingbefore the White House and during his presidencyis no longer defensible for many Democrats.

When Hillary insisted in a national television interview last year that her husband's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky was not "an abuse of power" because "she was an adult," the press reaction was scathing. According to three friends of the Clintons interviewed for this story (who were granted anonymity to speak candidly), the furor had a "profoundly depressing effect" on the first couple and all those around them who still like and support them.

"It was just awful," says one of the friends. "For Bill, it brought up all the bad times, and it showed yet again that Hillary just has no political fingertips. It couldn't have been worse."

Until that point, it had been an open secret in Clinton world that Hillary was at least considering another presidential run, though just how seriously is a matter of dispute. She was being urged on by Bill, according to two sources close to them, who was convinced she would beat Donald Trump in a rematch. To both of them, "Trump had been predictably awful. They felt that, even with a relatively good economy, he was very vulnerable." And a lot of Democrats still wanted to make history by electing a woman, and both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders (whose supporters would have been infuriated by another Clinton run) obviously didn't fit that bill.

"Did they want revenge? Of course they did," says one former senior adviser. Either on the phone or at the occasional conclave at the couple's home in Chappaqua, New York, Hillary would bat around the idea with close aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, 2008 presidential campaign manager Maggie Williams and aide-de-camp Philippe Reines.

Some were less enthusiastic than others. In the first year or so after she lost to Trump, Hillary was somewhat insulated from the anger a lot of Democratic leaders felt toward her. That resentment was a subject Bill didn't raise, although he was aware of it from his endless soundings of his national network of contacts in the party. Public polling or approval ratings didn't provide much encouragement. A Gallup Poll in the fall of 2018 had her at 36 percent.

If there was ever any hope that Hillary might go for round two against Trump, defending Bill's conduct with Lewinsky ended it. The woman who somehow lost in 2016 "to an orange puffer clown fish," as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd put it, was, like her husband, done. Throughout most, if not all, of Hillary-land, there was relief. "It was probably the right decision," says former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a longtime Clinton ally.

Still, for reasons that bewilder some of their friends, the Clintons continue to feel compelled to be in the public eye, to make themselves heard. Consider the recently concluded tour called "An Evening With the Clintons," in which the two reminisced about their time in Washington. It began last fall at a sports arena in Torontoa vast venue more appropriate for a Beyonc concert than a political trip down memory lane. There were huge numbers of empty seats and large sections of the arena cordoned off by curtain. Ticket sales were slow, and the promoters had to cut prices in half. The entire evening was a debacle, and the tour took a hiatus.

But it was not canceled. Organizers had booked some smaller venues for the spring though at at least two of these some seating was blocked out so as to create a more intimate setting. Ticket prices were slashed, and again the Clintons sallied forth: 13 stops across the country, ending on May 4 in Las Vegas, answering softball questions from factotums like former political adviser Paul Begala or celebrities like comedian Jordan Klepper, who, inexplicably, was chosen to host the Washington, D.C., event on April 27.

Most of the program is legacy-burnishing: how smart they were; how they wanted to unite not divide; how they grew the economy for everyone, not just the rich. They riff about how they ended the war in Bosnia in the 1990s. "Bill, this is boring!" a heckler yelled at the New York event before being hustled out of the Beacon Theatre.

Most of the crowds are still adoring, of course; the Clintons don't even have enough juice to draw many protesters anymore. The crowds on the tour applaud virtually everything both of them say. But the small-scale venuesmany were still not sold outand the cheaper prices speak to the very real cost of exile for the Clintons. Beyond the just-ended tour, their speaking fees have plummeted. After she left her job as secretary of state but before she declared her 2016 candidacy, Hillary used to make $200,000 per speech. In 2014, she spoke at eight different universities and pulled in $1.8 million.

No longer. The head of one prominent public speakers' agency, who didn't want to be quoted on the record, says Hillary's fees have come down sharplyparticularly after a couple of post-2016 university speaking engagements (for which she was paid up to $300,000) sparked a fierce backlash. Since then, her fees have been as low as $25,000 or $50,000 per event. A Clinton spokesperson disputed these figures but declined to disclose specific speaking fees.

Bill, because of the current political climate, doesn't do as many solo domestic gigs as before, though he's still in demand abroad, commanding $200,000 or more for foreign engagements. He doesn't do them as often as he used to eitherhe's had "more than 30" engagements in the last 12 months, according to a spokesmanbecause physically, an associate says, "he's not up to it." From 2001 to 2015, just before Hillary declared as a candidate, the Clintons made more than $150 million in speaking fees. "Those days are gone," says the associate.

The Clinton Foundationthe philanthropic unit Bill set up after his presidencyhas also fallen out of favor now that there is no prospect of the Clintons returning to power. Federal tax filings show donations of $62.9 million in 2016 fell to $26.5 million a year later. A Clinton spokesman said that's "largely" because the annual Clinton Global Initiative Conference was canceled in 2016, and fundraising for the endowment ceased. Republican critics often charged that the foundation was a pay-to-play scheme while Hillary was secretary of state and then a prospective president. But those political charges have become as irrelevant as the Clintons are.

Of the two, Hillary retains the higher public profile. She's still doing select TV interviews and some solo speaking engagements. Friends of hers say there was a time following the 2016 election when she didn't know how much to re-engage with the publicif at all. There wasand remainsconsiderable sentiment among Democratic stalwarts that the woman who lost an election to Trump should just go away. Friends, including former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile, helped coax her out of despair. Brazile says she urged Hillary "to pick her spots, speak up and speak out."

She has done so and, in contrast to Bill, has been gratified that several of the current Democratic contenders have sought her advice on the 2020 campaign. That includes all of the major female candidatesSenators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrandas well as former Vice President Joe Biden, among others. Jennifer Palmieri, who served as Hillary's communications director in 2016, says she expects Hillary to be "a very visible" presence as the 2020 campaign continues. "She has a lot to contribute and a lot to say, both in private [to other candidates] and in public."

Friends of both Clintons say Hillary has been "warmed" by the amount of sympathy she gets from voters she encounters. "The political pros may still be angry that she lost and think she should stay out of the limelight," says Joe Lockhart, who was Bill's press secretary when he was president, "but a lot of people voted for her enthusiastically, and she has already been reminded of that. She's still a significant voice in American politics."

As with any story about the Clintons, particularly one about their exile, there are questions about their endlessly scrutinized marriage. Hillary spends most of her time in Chappaquaher days of long, lonely walks in the woods are overand Bill is there more often than not. Ask friends how the Clintons are doing in their private life as a couple and they usually avoid answering.

"I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm not going there," one of Bill's longtime senior aides puts it. The truth most likely is: They are as they have been. Despite the personal scandals and political disappointments, "they're partners," says the aide. "They always will be."

Still, there are moments that are jarring. At the Daughters of the American Revolution Hall, where the D.C. "Evening With the Clintons" was held, Bill, in the midst of a riff about the current political state of affairs, said, "There are a lot of very smart, decent people out there who are a part of the 'Make America great' rallies. People who feel that they're stuck in economic stagnation, social insignificance and political disempowerment.''

Hillary was sitting next to him as he said this. There was no mention of her infamous description of Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables" and "irredeemables" during the campaignthe moment many of her aides believe cost her the election, never mind Russian meddling. Hillary didn't even bother to campaign in Wisconsin during the general election, even though, according to a longtime friend, Bill had been unsettled by the number of "Make America great again" signs he had seen there while campaigning on her behalf.

It was a stunning moment. Of course, Bill was right. Former aides to the president say it drove him nuts that Hillary's campaign didn't feel the need to go after the white working-class people who, in many respects, were his political base during two successful runs for the presidency. That they ended up electing Trump "just kills," says a friend.

Did Bill make the "smart, decent people" remark to rub it in to Hillary and her former campaign advisers? Does he not know how that comment would be perceived? Hillary didn't react one way or the other; the conversation moved on. Later, she alluded, as she did at several of these evening "conversations," to the election being "stolen" from hera reference to Russian interference. The audience applauds enthusiastically. Both Clintons nod.

Both are smart people, famously so. One was charismatic politically, one was decidedly not. Now, their public careers are over, and maybe it's easier for them to say that a malevolent foreign force was the cause of her defeat. Bill, however, spoke an obvious truth: Insulting the voters you need only lands you in exile.

This story has been updated to correct the name of Cheryl Mills, who was incorrectly referred to as Cheryl Williams, and to add information regarding the Clintons' speaking fees and funding of the Clinton Foundation.

Continued here:
Bill and Hillary Clinton's Life in Exile: The Once-Powerful ...