Search by name, company, title, location, etc.

Philip Rosenstein

Member since October 2015Contact Philip

Editor of the Marketing Politics Daily newsletter and author of the Red, White & Blog column. Founder of policy data website White House Press.

Articles by Philip All articles by Philip

Comments by Philip All comments by Philip

  • Russian Election Hacking Called 'Political Equivalent Of 9/11' by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 12/13/2016)

    Thanks for the comment, Tom - there's a lot here, but since Steve also noted his issue with "overwhelming evidence" I'll address that. I concede that the CIA sources quoted in the WaPo article are anonymous, so let's look at what people are saying on the record. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said in an interview with NPR: "I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Russians hacked into our political institutions with a design to meddle in our elections ... And it's also very clear that the Russians had a preferred candidate here." - He has a lot more to say here - https://goo.gl/UGwlPA And as I'm sure you guys appreciate the details of the briefings he and his colleagues get are not public. In the column I don't say that the hacks got Trump elected, I am completely aware that there is much more to it. But the hacks certainly hurt Clinton, and ~10,000 votes in Michigan, ~20,000 votes in Wisconsin and ~70,000 votes in Pennsylvania are tiny margins. The bigger issue, which Mike Morell concisely explains, is that the evidence of meddling in our supposedly uniquely independent election process is a deeply worrying sign of what may be coming in a Trump presidency - particularly in light of his unwillingness to even entertain the evidence. Both parties are in agreement that they need to go forward with a Congressional investigation. I appreciate the comments, guys - this is an important conversation to have. I'm curious to read how you respond.

  • Was It Comey, Or Was It Clinton? by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 11/30/2016)

    Thanks for making that point, Phillip - yes, the Clinton Foundation issues are surely part of what soured Clinton's image. However, as I'm sure you'd agree, your point that - "No one likes people who become wealthy at the expense of others," is perfectly applicable to our president-elect. He's largely run his businesses at the expense of others -- employees, contractors, tenants etc. There's a blatant double standard there. I do concede that there is a difference between a business and a foundation. Surely the close relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department didn't do Clinton any favors, but Comey's untimely and wholly uncommon letter to Congress, regardless of its relatively benign contents, shook many uncertain voters. And, as stated in the piece, the margins in key states were so small that Comey could very well have made a significant difference. But, yes, questions about the Clinton Foundation should certainly be added to the "litany" of issues.

  • Third Presidential Debate: Donald Trump Makes History by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 10/20/2016)

    Point taken, Thom. With a daily opinion column, sometimes certain events grab interest and plead for comment. If you look back through the columns, you might find some of what you're looking for.

  • Third Presidential Debate: Donald Trump Makes History by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 10/20/2016)

    Thanks for the comment, Steve. I do appreciate the similarities between Gore's legislatively mandated recount in Florida and Trump's assertions that the entire 2016 election is being rigged. There a couple points I'd like to note on this, however. 1. Florida's laws state that when the vote margin between candidates is less than 0.5%, a recount is immediately triggered - see section 102.141, Sub (7): http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/102.141 - Florida polls have Clinton about 4 points up. If the difference is less than 0.5% on Nov. 8, a recount is absolutely acceptable.2. Gore never said that the election was "rigged," or suggested that there was a conspiracy against him. Even when the Florida recount happened, it was the state that initiated it, Gore didn't even have to ask for it. 3. Gore won the popular vote by a little more than 500,000 votes - so yes, Bush was "selected" by the electoral college, and subsequently by the Supreme Court. But that's what Democrats had to deal with. Gore, no matter how difficult it must have been, conceded the election gracefully to president Bush.4. Trump says he'll only accept the outcome of the vote if he wins. I mean, what is that about? It's either rigged or it's not. If it's rigged then his win would also be moot. Thanks for the engagement!

  • Trump And Taxes: "Genius" Or "Incompetent Failure"? by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 10/03/2016)

    Thanks for the comment, Steve - you are right, the Clintons did have a $700,000 loss on their 2015 tax return. From what I've read, however, they only claimed $3,000 of that as a deduction - seen here on the first page of their return, line 13. https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdfHillary Clinton's federal income tax burden in 2015 was $3.2 million, so no, she is not responsible for not paying for police too. We know the Clintons have paid between 25% and 38.2% effective federal tax rate since 2001 - and that's because they've released their returns. 

  • Who Interacts With Trump, Clinton On Twitter? by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 09/21/2016)

    Appreciate the engagement, Phillip. I do agree that some of the data may be noise, and that the piece doesn't dive into the meaning behind the numbers. There are some constants like gender and location differences that can be used to frame short-term ad campaigns. Currently reading Silver's The Signal And The Noise, very wary to point out signals where there may be none. Thanks for the constructive thoughts. 

  • We Should Be More Concerned With Trump's Character Than With Clinton's Health by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 09/12/2016)

    Appreciate the thoughtful comment, Steve. The truth issue, as you say, should be a primary concern for both candidates. Substance is also central to the debate and while we may have differing opinions on that front, that is where the decision for president should be made. While I may not have written much about the questions surrounding HRC's health, as I wrote today, those queries should not go unchecked, and she needs to do more to assuage potential voters. Both Trump and Clinton are releasing more medical docs this week, so maybe we will move beyond this.

  • We Should Be More Concerned With Trump's Character Than With Clinton's Health by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 09/12/2016)

    Thanks for the comment, Rick - I wholeheartedly agree. It's clearly a strategy of theirs to restrict the outflow of information from the campaign, and often they're doing more harm than good, it seems. It's likely based on the calculation that you and many others are making: "pinching [one's] nose ... when pulling the lever for HRC."

  • We Should Be More Concerned With Trump's Character Than With Clinton's Health by Philip Rosenstein (Red, White & Blog on 09/12/2016)

    This is an opinion blog, so I don't claim to be neutral. I do very much appreciate critical responses to what I write, however, it only furthers the conversation. Thanks for engaging.

  • The Most Important Book I Read This Summer by Dave Morgan (Online Spin on 09/09/2016)

    Fascinating how history repeats itself and we are none the wiser. Thanks for bringing this book the fore, Dave! Does Drucker give any practical suggestions on how to combat fascist rhetoric that could be applied today, beyond appearing to understand their problems/pain and speaking the language of the disaffected masses?

About Edit

You haven't told us anything about yourself! Surely you've got something to say. Tell us a little something.