The next Democratic President should do this:

From M.J. Lee’s “Strong economy could help Hillary Clinton, Democrats” at CNN Politics: “The Labor Department announced Friday that the U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October, pushing the unemployment rate down to 5%. To put that figure in perspective, the last time the jobless rate was 5% was in April 2008…The most striking bright spot in Friday’s report was wage growth. After remaining stubbornly stagnant, average hourly earnings rose 2.5% — the best gain since 2009″…”This is a very good report. And it’s not just the headline number but the fact that average hourly earnings are up,” said Gus Faucher, a PNC senior economist. “If I were a Democrat I would be making a lot of hay out of it.”
Austerity’s fruits even worse than progressive economists predicted, writes NYT columnist Paul Krugman.
At The New Yorker Margaret Talbot’s “The Populist Prophet: Bernie Sanders has spent decades attacking inequality. Now the country is listening” provides one of the best 2016 presidential candidate profiles to date.
“The presidential race is the main event. It has everything: It has glamour, it has money, it has power — it’s showbiz. It’s an attraction,” Pelosi said Thursday. “And off years are like the lounge act. Who goes there — right?” — from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, as reported in Eric Bradner’s CNN Politics post, “The Democrats’ off-year election crisis.” Some other observations from Bradner’s post include the suggestion that “the DNC launch and fund a national training program for state parties — which would then train local parties. A particular focus: Teaching the new voters the party has attracted in recent years the importance of voting in every race — not leaving the polling place with the first few boxes filled in an a massive “undervote” by failing to vote down-ballot. That problem reached record levels in 2008.” Other Democrats pointed to messaging…”I think it’s communicating a clear message on policy and policy differences,” said Holly Shulman, a Democratic strategist and former DNC official…The now nearly nine-month-old DNC task force document suggested a “national narrative project” to advance the premise that electing Democrats everywhere — not just to top national offices — is what’s necessary to promote some policy priorities.”
Bradner’s article also contains a clue that the Kentucky governor’s race may not have been just a spanking for Democrats: “Some Democrats said Kentucky’s results aren’t a useful check on where the two parties stand a year away from the presidential election…Their argument: The Democratic candidate, Attorney General Jack Conway, shied away from taking any Democratic-sounding positions. And two other statewide candidates, including failed 2014 Senate nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes as secretary of state and another Democrat as attorney general, actually won.” — despite a 31 percent turnout.
The Guardian’s Washington political correspondent Ben Jacobs praises Rachel Maddow’s forum with Democratic presidential candidates: “The forum may not sway many voters. It lacked fireworks and the type of “gotcha” moments that have defined the most widely seen presidential debates. However, the format did lend itself to substance and serious discussion. It may not have altered the arc of the Democratic campaign, but it left voters knowing a lot more about all three candidates who appeared.
Patrik Jonsson’s Monitor post “Do Democrats have a viable strategy to win back the South?” explores the possibility that Democrats are doing poorly in the South in large part because they have neglected the white working class in the region, as well as nation-wide. Johnson quotes Andrew Levison, who notes “The “harsh reality for Democrats is that they cannot achieve … [their] objectives without increasing their support among white working class Americans,”… it’s impossible to write off working Americans in all of the Red states or in all non-urban areas and still have a stable and enduring Democratic majority…”
in Politico’s ‘Democrats look to ride Clinton wave to Senate control:The party is angling to expand the electoral map by fielding strong recruits in red states like Missouri and Arkansas,” Burgess Everett and Kevin Robillard survey the Democratic senatorial field for 2016 and find some unexpected opportunities and a couple of problem races. The most glaring weakness for Dems seems to be the lack of a formidable candidate in NC to beat Sen. Richard Burr, who currently has dismal approval ratings.

HuffPo’s senior polling editor Natalie Jackson explains “Here’s Why The Kentucky Polls Were Wrong” in reporting that Democratic candidate for Governor Jack Conway was leading (with one exception) in the late polling. In one key graph, Jackson notes, “It’s not a disaster for pollsters, but the industry did miss the mark.”turnout in the race was only around 31 percent. That means the polls probably overshot turnout projections in trying to identify likely voters. This is the same problem that we see in primary polling — when turnout is low, it’s very difficult to predict who will vote. And lower turnout often favors Republicans.”
At FiveThirtyEight.com Harry Enten opines, “It’s not yet clear whether pollsters simply projected that more Democratic voters would show up than actually did or whether undecided voters broke overwhelmingly for the Republican candidates. The former suggests an electorate modeling problem that could be a big problem during the presidential primaries, when turnout is low. On the other hand, trouble modeling the electorate would be less of an issue in the 2016 general election, when turnout is at its highest…Yet, I would be careful of making too much of the Kentucky results. Only three polls not sponsored by a candidate came out during the final three weeks of the campaign. That’s far less polling than was conducted in other recent polling mishaps…”
In Chicken Little reportage, Josh Kraushaar makes a case at National Journal that “Matt Bevin’s Kentucky Win Is the End of an Era–and That Should Scare Democrats Everywhere.” Overstated though it may be, Kraushaar’s post does offer an interesting observation: “The GOP’s out­reach to Afric­an-Amer­ic­an voters is con­sequen­tial–even if it isn’t provid­ing im­me­di­ate di­vidends. Bev­in wasn’t just a Re­pub­lic­an out­sider be­cause of his apolit­ic­al bio­graphy. His cam­paign also looked a lot dif­fer­ent than pre­vi­ous can­did­ates, and he traveled to parts of the state that Re­pub­lic­ans rarely ven­tured. At his vic­tory speech Tues­day night, he was ac­com­pan­ied by his nine chil­dren–four ad­op­ted from Ethiopia–and his Afric­an-Amer­ic­an run­ning mate Jenean Hamp­ton, who be­comes the first black statewide of­fice­hold­er in the state’s 223-year his­tory.”
Robert McCartney addresses an important question about Tuesday’s election at The Washington Post, “Did gun control cost McAuliffe and Democrats the Virginia election?” McCartney reports, “In a race that proved decisive in enabling Republicans to retain control of the Senate, Republican Glen H. Sturtevant won the 10th District seat after benefiting from a huge turnout in conservative Powhatan County, which analysts attributed in part to the gun issue.” McCartney’s article also notes another interesting possibility: “”Donald Trump probably gets some of the credit” for the Republicans’ success, said Christopher Newport University political scientist Quentin Kidd. “The primary has raised awareness. Republicans are just more tuned in right now.”
Estelle Erasmus argues at Newsweek that Hillary Clinton should emphasize more forcefully “her dedication to advocating for women and children at home and abroad, a topic that has yet to be as boldly embraced by any prior presidential candidate.” Erasmus says that child development and education are priorities that enjoy enormous public support, and should become a central focus of her campaign.
Bush 41 distances himself from the neocon lunacy of Dick Cheney and “arrogance of Donald Rumsfeld,” both architects of the Iraq mess. Along with the global financial meltdown, the Iraq quagmire helped Bush 43 earn the designation of “worst president ever” in the opinions of millions, as well as 61 percent of a poll of 109 historians. Wonder what 41 thinks of the current crop of GOP presidential aspirants.
“Then there are the lesser crimes,” adds M.W. Jacobs at Huffpo, “theft of the 2000 election, multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts for cronies, pandering to anti-gay bigotry during his reelection campaign, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol lowering greenhouse gas emissions, withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, invalidation of the Geneva Convention protocols against torture, and here are 300 anti-environmental actions listed by the Sierra Club.” All of which should make voters more than a little concerned about the presidential ambitions of Bush 43’s stoutest defender, brother Jeb.
A reported half million petitioners want Saturday Night Live to disinvite Donald Trump as guest host in their upcoming show. Latino voters are not amused by the prospect of Trump’s immigration bigotry becoming fodder for public merriment. There is also grumbling among other presidential campaigns about giving choice media exposure to humanize an already over-exposed presidential contender to the detriment of his competition.
It appears that Ohio’s reefer referendum may have increased voter turnout a smidgen or two, according to the Associated Press. “Unofficial results show more Ohioans voted in Tuesday’s off-year election that included a marijuana legalization issue than in last year’s midterm election highlighted by the race for governor…Nearly 3.2 million people, or about 42.4 percent of Ohio’s registered voters, cast ballots for this general election…The turnout topped the roughly 40.7 percent reported last November, when Gov. John Kasich was re-elected. The number of ballots cast also is higher this year.”

Republicans won a couple of significant electoral victories yesterday, including the governorship of Kentucky and holding on to their edge in the Virginia state senate. The Republican businessman, Matt Bevin beat Democratic Attorney-General Jack Conway in Kentucky by an impressive 53 to 44 percent (county results map here.).
Bevin almost certainly benefitted from KY’s red state demographics, along with coal industry support, ‘outsider’ (not a career politician) status and a late onslaught of attack ads linking Conway to President Obama’s energy policies. There is also speculation that Bevin may have been boosted by having an African-American running-mate Jenean Hampton. The vote tally compared with October polls suggests either a weak turnout effort on Conway’s behalf, a strong ground game in support of Bevin, or some combination of both.
Yesterday’s elections weren’t all bad news for Democrats. In Mississippi, Attorney General Jim Hood, the last Democrat to hold a statewide office, was re-elected to a fourth term by an impressive 56 percent-44 percent vote. But also in Mississippi, Republican Governor Phil Bryant was re-elected in a 2-1 landslide.
National Democratic leaders were probably more disappointed, however, by the results in the Virginia legislative elections than by Conway’s loss in KY. As Patrick Wilson reports at the Virginia Pilot,

Virginia Republicans handed Gov. Terry McAuliffe a defeat in Tuesday’s General Assembly election, holding their Senate majority in a year when the Democratic governor had predicted his party would take control of the chamber. The House of Delegates retained its strong Republican majority, and the Senate remains in GOP control, 21-19…The GOP kept its Senate majority by holding onto a Richmond-area seat. Republican Glen Sturtevant will replace retiring GOP Sen. John Watkins in the 10th District…Democrats all year expressed confidence they’d win the Senate, and they had star power behind them. They hold all five statewide elected offices in Virginia, and their party leader has touted himself as a job-creating governor.

Democrats did well in Pennsylvania, reports Roll Call’s Eli Yokley:

Democrats swept the three seats up for election on the state’s Supreme Court, and control of the seven-member panel, which could have a broad implication on redistricting in 2020…With the court often tasked with picking the fifth member of the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Democrats will have a leg-up on redrawing the 18 congressional seats in the Keystone State, of which Democrats currently control just five, despite carrying presidential, governor and Senate races.

So yesterday’s elections were not a total disaster for Democrats, as GOP spin will undoubtedly play it. All in all, however, it was surely a better day for Republicans. There is just no point in putting lipstick on the pig of losing yet another governorship and the dashed hopes in swing state Virginia. Dems simply have to do better in statewide races to create enough room to be competitive in congressional races. Perhaps more effort in recruitment, training and funding of potential candidates.
Democratic hopes are now focused on November 21st, when the party’s candidate for Governor, John Bel Edwards hopes to beat the prostitution scandal-tainted Sen. David Vitter in a race for the Governorship. This one is winnable, despite, Louisiana’s GOP tilt in recent years. But it will require an exceptionally well-organized turnout effort focused on both the pro-Democratic base and creative outreach to persuadable voters who are creeped-out by Vitter.

Whatever else GOP leaders have to say about their proposed ground rules for future televised debates, they can’t say they didn’t ask for the growing ridicule they are receiving coast to coast. It’s not just the political cartoons and late night comedians that are having a field day; the merriment is erupting at watercoolers nationwide, and now the empire strikes back in the form of journalists having their say. Some samples:
At The Washington Post, Catherine Rampell likens the candidates’ whinefest to Seinfeld’s “airing of grievances” at “Festivus” and adds.

Both the Republican National Committee and its mutinying candidates have explicitly expressed an aim to eliminate “gotcha” questions, with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus complaining that these “mean-spirited” questions have been “designed to embarrass our candidates.” As opposed to those kindly, softball questions designed to flatter them, as a more obedient press would presumably supply.
Don’t be surprised if next we hear of demands for soft-focus cameras, bowls of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed and requirements that questions begin with “if you please, your excellency…I can’t imagine this collective hissy fit and any resulting concessions from the networks boding well for the candidates.”
And while it’s easy to mock some of these demands as petty and prima-donnish, many of them suggest a more insidious strategy: a concerted effort to extricate as much independent journalistic influence from the democratic process as possible and essentially turn the Fourth Estate into a bunch of stenographers.

Also at The Post, Dana Milbank frames his column in the form of an ‘application’ to serve as the groveling moderator of the next GOP debate:

I feel passionately that a debate is neither the time nor the place for hard questions, and as debate moderator I will rigorously adhere to gentle and affectionate questioning…I will pipe in artificial applause of precisely the same pre-agreed length and decibel level for all candidates after all answers.
I will submit my questions in advance for pre-approval by the campaigns. No questions will be asked about women, racial minorities or any other issue that might cast the Republican Party in an unfavorable light. There will be no questions about any candidate’s past statements or actions, including but not limited to: bankruptcies, financial difficulties, missed votes and inconsistencies. Candidates will not be required to perform math or to provide supporting evidence for claims. Candidates will be seated in Barcaloungers. If candidates feel overheated, the moderator will fan them while they answer and provide them with their choice of lemon or cucumber ice water. I will begin each question with the phrase “Mother, may I,” and I will address candidates as “Your Excellency,” “Your Eminence” or another honorific approved by the campaigns.

The New York Times editorial board called the GOP debate proposals a “daffy document drafted by hotheads” and adds, “Doesn’t this list leave too much to chance? What about hiding dangerous extension cords beneath the carpeting? And shouldn’t those vying to lead the free world be protected from word association games or geography bee questions?”
Digby suggests at Hullabaloo that ‘Morning Joe’ co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski serve as the next moderators for the GOP debates, having recently verified their softball credentials with a fawning interview of the Koch brothers. Digby notes further, “See? Those Kochs are just nice middle of the road billionaires who are worried about income inequality. Their lifetime of libertarian law-of-the-jungle economics has always been in service of helping the poor…But seriously, I think Mika and Joe could do a terrific job with the debates. If they’re good enough for the Kochs, they should be good enough for Donald Trump and Ben Carson.”
Calling the GOP debate demands “hilarious,” New York Magazine media critic Frank Rich notes “if you look at their demands in this letter which they’re not even all agreeing to, they seem to have been drafted by Stalin” and “so tedious, it’s so fascistic really, no one will watch.”
Esquire’s Charles Pierce responds to Ted Cruz’s suggestion that right-wing commentator Mark Levin co-host the next GOP debate: “But Mark Levin? Abso-freaking-lutely. Mark Levin thinks Paul Ryan is a squish. Mark Levin wants the Constitution rewritten to eliminate the popular election of senators and so that states can nullify federal laws. Let Levin moderate a debate and he’ll push these clowns so far to the right that they’ll end up in Kazakhstan. I would buy a ticket to that debate. Hell, I’d rent a luxury suite. Do it, folks. A grateful nation will applaud you.”
At The Nation Joan Walsh agrees, and adds: “Let’s be clear: The Republican whining about debate moderation to date is pathetic. They smacked CNBC moderators like piñatas Wednesday night, and they’ve continued battering them through the week. You’ll recall that Donald Trump savaged Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly in the most sexist way after the first debate. These guys are first-rate cry babies, working the refs by crying “liberal media bias!” like conservatives have for going on 50 years.”
The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent tweeted, “Oh for God’s sake. Do they really think their voters are this moronic?” and a commenter, ydnas639 responds, “Batter up for nerf ball.”
Republican leaders have placed a risky bet that the ridicule they are receiving will be overshadowed by the benefit they will get if big media is intimidated and caves to their arrogant demands. My guess is that the “liberal media” whine won’t resonate with many new voters– they already had the votes of nearly everyone who believes it. Indeed, if the next GOP debate plays like a lapdog show, the ridicule will amplify and this silly gambit will produce a net loss of GOP supporters.

Harold Meyerson’s Washington Post column, “Can Bernie Sanders’s followers create a true leftist movement?” puts his campaign in perspective and outlines the challenge that awaits his followers:

Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign is different. He has refused to establish a super PAC. He shuns personal attacks. And, not incidentally, he proclaims himself a democratic socialist.
But there’s one further way in which his campaign fundamentally differs not just from those of the other candidates but also from any in many years: While striving to win votes, it also has to morph into an enduring left-wing movement.
..Every period of progressive reform in U.S. history has come as a result of massive street heat, of energized movements that push policymaking elites to the left. Abolitionists pressured the Lincoln Republicans toward a policy of emancipation. Militant workers and a socialist left, whose general strikes shut down several major cities in 1934, prompted Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democrats to legalize collective bargaining and create Social Security in 1935. The civil rights movement enabled the Kennedy-Johnson Democrats to pass the landmark legislation of the ’60s. Progressive reform doesn’t happen absent a large and vibrant left.

Regarding the Sanders campaign’s longer-term prospects, Meyerson writes:

…Precisely because Sanders has staked out the most distinctly leftist terrain of any major candidate in decades, and because so many Americans (young Americans in particular) have rallied to his cause, his campaign holds the promise of recreating that missing left…Well, maybe.
…The question that looms before the campaign is less whether it can win Sanders the Democratic nomination, much less the presidency — goals that look, to put it mildly, daunting. Rather, it is whether its volunteers can help form an enduring left movement without which a future Democratic president and Congress won’t be able to enact even minor changes to income distribution or minor reforms to a capitalism that erodes the middle class.

Meyerson cautions, “Problem is, progressive presidential candidacies seldom have consequential afterlives,” and offers the examples of presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson in the 1980s and Robert LaFollette in 1924. Ditto, to some extent, for Henry Wallace in 1948. Nor did President Obama’s followers create much of a post-campaign movement of consequence. Looking toward the future, Meyerson adds:

…This formidable task requires, first, that Sanders’s legions understand the unique historic opportunity that their coming together presents: That their victory in all probability won’t be putting Bernie in the White House, but creating a surging and enduring left. That, in turn, requires them to give as much thought to forming or joining autonomous post-campaign organizations, and envisioning post-campaign mobilizations, as they now do to advancing Sanders’s candidacy..signing on for Sanders, if his volunteers are serious, isn’t like signing on for any other candidate. It should mean they’re signing on for rebuilding the long-gone American left.

Meyerson concludes, “Is this difficult? And how. Is this necessary? Totally.”
The impressive accomplishments of the Sanders campaign include taking the boogeyman out of the term “democratic socialism,” at least for a while, and forcing the MSM to report on some of the extraordinary achievements of democratic socialism in north European countries. What has been interesting about this, is how utterly limp the conservative response has been — pretty much reduced to leaden neo-Mccarthyist one-liners. I guess it’s hard to put down popular reforms like free college education and universal health care.
Along with Elizabeth Warren, Sanders’s fearless advocacy of economic justice reforms has pushed Hillary Clinton to the left, which may prove to be his most enduring contribution. If she wins, Sanders campaign supporters will have the responsibility of providing the leadership needed to secure her follow-through commitment.
Win or lose, Sanders has done a great thing. But Meyerson is right about the cause that beckons his followers and all progressive Democrats to an even more exciting future — a vibrant, well-rooted movement for democratic socialist reforms.

This Salon.com headline says it well: “The GOP’s media warfare goes nuclear: How the RNC is trying to hold journalism hostage.”
“How the Right Trounced Liberals in the States: Conservatives have mastered the art of cross-state policy advocacy, while liberal efforts have fizzled. Here’s what has to change” by Alexander Hertel-Fernandez & Theda Skocpol should be required reading for Democrats concerned with political strategy. The authors argue that “Network builders have to get out of their comfort zones in the worlds of liberal advocacy groups mostly headquartered in New York, Washington, California, and a few other blue enclaves to find and activate network connections across the vast heartland. And if progressives want to gain credibility and clout in the states, they will need to become far more strategic about engaging in widespread policy fights with the greatest potential to reshape the political landscape in conservative as well as liberal states across America.”
George Stephanopoulos interviews Stanley Greenberg and Republican pollster Kristin Soltis Anderson on “The 2016 Election Through the Eyes of the Polling Pros.”
NYT columnist and Nobel Prize for Economics laureate Paul Krugman weighs in on the differences between GOP and Democratic presidents’ management of the economy: …”Historically, the economy has indeed done better under Democrats….The arithmetic on partisan differences is actually stunning. Last year the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson circulated a paper comparing economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents since 1947. Under Democrats, the economy grew, on average, 4.35 percent per year; under Republicans, only 2.54 percent. Over the whole period, the economy was in recession for 49 quarters; Democrats held the White House during only eight of those quarters…The Obama record compares favorably on a number of indicators with that of George W. Bush. In particular, despite all the talk about job-killing policies, private-sector employment is eight million higher than it was when Barack Obama took office, twice the job gains achieved under his predecessor before the recession struck…Democrats can afford to be cautious in their economic promises precisely because their policies can be sold on their merits. Republicans must sell an essentially unpopular agenda by confidently declaring that they have the ultimate recipe for prosperity — and hope that nobody points out their historically poor track record. And if someone does point to that record, you know what they’ll do: Start yelling about media bias.”
For Republican elected officials who are thinking that it’s time to bail, here’s a good template:

Jessica Taylor’s post, “Can Democrats Find Their Southern Charm?” explores the Dems’ improving prospects for taking the governorships of Kentucky and Louisiana.
In his AlJezeera post, “GOP and Democrats slow to woo booming Asian American electorate,” Bobby Calvan writes: “In the 2014 midterm elections, some exit polls suggested that Asian Americans were about evenly split between Democratic and Republican candidates — a dramatic turn from the 2012 presidential election, when 73 percent of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) aligned with the Democrats…Far from monolithic, Asian Americans hail from dozens of countries — three-quarters of Asian Americans are foreign born — and arrived in the United States from a multitude of cultures, religions and political histories. They have different worldviews…Democrats and Republicans are more invested in chasing after the 25.2 million eligible Latino voters — a much bigger prize than the 9 million eligible voters of Asian descent.”
WaPo syndicated columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. writes about the downer tone that pervades the GOP and it’s supporters in their view of the future. “The pessimism within significant sectors of the GOP is more than the unhappiness partisans typically feel when the other side is in power. It’s rooted in a belief that things have fundamentally changed in America, and there is an ominous possibility they just can’t be put right again…Democrats are more bullish on the future.”
Cartoonist Mike Luckovitch shares his vision of the coming GOP presidential debates.

Re last night’s GOP debate, the pundit and prediction markets consensus seems to be that Rubio amped up his game with punchy rebuttals and hogging more time than previously. Carson won the new twitter followers and Facebook ‘likes’ derbies, while Bush scored the bold-type quote of the evening at Rubio’s expense with his carefully-crafted zinger referencing the “French work-week.” But Trump edged out Rubio and smoked all of the other candidates (Bush dead last) on stage on the applause-o-meter, reports Andre Tartar in his Bloomberg by-the-numbers post.
At FiveThirtyEight.com Nate Silver mulls over the debate and some recent numbers and concludes “Yeah, Jeb Bush is Probably Toast.”
The concerted GOP whine of the evening was that the media has failed to give their presidential candidate field enough softballs. NBC’s Chuck Todd called it a “premeditated attack” on the media. All of which smells like the GOP field hopes to intimidate the MSM from asking tough questions.
Speaking of softballs, the hapless “undercard” candidates were actually asked if they thought the day after the superbowl should be a national holiday.
A new Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ support for the Tea Party has dropped to its lowest level since the movement emerged on the national political scene prior to the 2010 midterm elections. Seventeen percent of Americans now consider themselves Tea Party supporters.”
Back in the real world, a just-released Associated Press-GfK poll shows strong support for tighter gun laws: “Eight in 10 Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while 6 in 10 Republicans want them left as they are or loosened…Still, the results show the calls for tighter laws have some bipartisan appeal, with 37 percent of Republicans, including 31 percent of conservative Republicans, favoring stricter gun laws,” reports AP’s Emily Swanson.
A newly-published ‘Third Way’ report makes the case that “The Democratic economic agenda should be organized around one over-arching goal: sustained private sector economic growth that expands and greatly benefits the middle class.”
Could it be that the continuing litany of scandals involving former GOP House speakers and Boehner’s failed legacy sets an irresistibly low bar for Paul Ryan, as he preps for the speakership?
‘Partner” would be a contortionist’s stretch.

A constant feature of dialogue among left-progressives is whether it is time to launch a serious national third party campaign. In his article, “Why Leftists Should Also Be Democrats,” Michael Kazin, co-editor of Dissent addresses the question in the context of today’s politics.
Kazin decries the ‘self-defeating” denial of many leftists that the Democratic party has on numerous occasions proven to be an effective advocate for progressive change benefitting millions of working people. Indeed, has any major social or economic reform of the last century in the U.S. been accomplished without the benefit of Democratic Party leadership?
Dismissing the Democratic Party and its rank and file as hopelessly irrelevant to the quest for a more just society as do some leftists is making the good the enemy of the perfect. As Kazin says, “If you neglect the Dems–or simply denounce them–you are saying, in effect, that the carefully considered strategies of all these people who are trying to transform the nation for the better are simply mistaken.”
Kazin also emphasizes the increasing extremism of the modern GOP as a compelling reason for a unified opposition, and the only real-world alternative at present is the Democratic party. Thus, “any leftist who discourages people from engaging in electoral politics or wastes her vote on a third party is doing her bit, however small, to help Republicans win.” And it’s not all that much of a stretch to add that any eligible voter who chooses to stay home on election day is, in effect, voting Republican.
Taking it a step further, before 2000 you could make a case that a third party vote for purely ideological reasons in certain “safe” blue or lost red states in presidential elections need not do any damage to prospects for progressive change. But the nightmare in Florida in 2000, with its horrific and still-reverberating human and economic consequences, continues to wreak destruction in the U.S. and world-wide. The stakes of ill-considered third party dalliances are now too high to seriously consider.
The Democratic party is not the rigidly-corrupt institution of purist left fantasy. The successful campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example, indicates that there is a prominent place of influence in the Party for advocates of Democratic socialism. Win or lose, Sanders has already pushed his Democratic opposition substantially to the left, and he has been a hell of a lot more effective in doing so than any third party effort since the Progressive party lead by Henry Wallace in 1948.
As Kazin notes, “the Democrats are also an institution that’s quite open to participation by individuals and groups at nearly every level–from county committees to campaign staffs to elections of delegates to the quadrennial nominating convention. That means there are plenty of opportunities to nudge, or push, the party to the left…Bernie Sanders knows all this–which is why he decided to run for president as a Democrat.”
None of this is to argue that third parties are always counter-productive as advocates for progressive change. They are essential components of progressive coalitions in parliamentary systems and the day may come when they are equally important in the U.S. At present, however, that is not the case. As Kazin writes,

It would be wonderful to belong to and vote for a party that stood unambiguously for democratic socialist principles, articulated them to diverse constituencies in fresh and thrilling ways, and had the ability to compete for every office from mayor to legislator to governor to senator to president. But not many Americans speak Norwegian.
In the United States, there are innumerable obstacles to starting and sustaining a serious new party on the left: the electoral laws work against it, most of the media would ignore it, the expenses of building the infrastructure are prohibitive, and the constituency for such a party doesn’t currently exist. A majority of Americans do say they would like to have a third party to vote for. But at least as many of those people stand on the right as on the left, and many others just despise “politics as usual” and seldom, if ever, vote.

Kazin boils down the choice facing progressives considering involvement in third party activism:

It’s a pragmatic question: can one do more to make the United States a more just and humane society and help people in other societies by working inside, as well as outside, the party, or by ignoring or denouncing it? Of course, leftists in the United States should continue to do what they have always done: stage protests, build movements, educate people, lobby politicians, and create institutions that try to improve the lives of the people whom they serve. But political parties are essential to a healthy democracy. And right now, the Democrats are the only party we have.

Part of meeting this challenge is for Democrats to encourage stronger caucuses in party structure, so different factions will feel they have a real voice — and a stake — in the Democratic Party and its victories. In this way, the divisions Democrats are struggling with now can become their electoral edge in the future.

At The Plum Line Greg Sargent interviews Elisabeth Pearson, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, on the topic of Democratic prospects for winning governors races over the next four years. Pearson says, “The big years are 2017 and 2018, when we have 38 races. Nine out of 10 of the largest states are up in that cycle. There will be at least 20 or more open seats. We see the greatest ability to change governorships when there are open seats. There’s a huge amount of potential, particularly in open-seat states that Obama won twice: Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Iowa. There are 12 states in the 2018 cycle that have Republican governors that Obama won. That’s huge for us. That’s why we see a four year cycle…Eighteen of those 35 states are states that we are targeting as important for potential pickup. Let’s say we had fair maps in those 18 states. By our calculations, that would mean about 44 Congressional seats that would move from Republican to Democratic.”
Vice President Biden goes into candid detail about the real reasons for and myths about his decision not to run for President in 2016, and leaves readers with enhanced respect for his character and decency, as well as his life of distinguished public service. Few politicians are more deserving of the high compliment, ‘first-class human being.’
In his National Journal article, “Biden Exit Opens Door For Powerful Clinton Coalition,” Ronald Brownstein writes, “Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden’s de­cision not to enter the Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial race clears the path­way for Hil­lary Clin­ton to as­semble an im­pos­ing demo­graph­ic co­ali­tion in the nom­in­a­tion con­test. It also vastly in­tens­i­fies the pres­sure on Sen. Bernie Sanders, her chief re­main­ing rival, to make in­roads with voters of col­or…the vice pres­id­ent had the po­ten­tial to di­vide two of the con­stitu­en­cies she is re­ly­ing upon: eth­nic minor­it­ies, par­tic­u­larly Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans, and blue-col­lar white voters. Biden’s choice not to run im­proves Clin­ton’s chance of con­sol­id­at­ing most of those voters–and could make the math for Sanders much more dif­fi­cult than if those two con­stitu­en­cies were frag­ment­ing in a race with three ma­jor can­did­ates…Just as Biden’s de­par­ture in­creases the pres­sure on Sanders to court non­white voters, it also height­ens the need for Clin­ton to mo­bil­ize the di­verse con­stitu­en­cies that loom as her fire­wall in what now has more clearly be­come a two-per­son race.”
Capping Clinton’s happy week, Bloomberg Politics Mark Halperin makes the case that “The Most Likely Next President is Hillary Clinton.”
For an exceptionally-impressive analysis of a state legislative election, read Geoffrey Skelley’s Crystal Ball post Vying for Virginia: The 2015 General Assembly Elections: All eyes are on the race for the Virginia Senate, which notes: “In the Senate, Republicans currently hold a 21-19 advantage. However, the lieutenant governor is Ralph Northam (D), who is in a position to break ties in Democrats’ favor. Thus, a net gain of one seat for Democrats would enable them to take back the upper chamber, though they would still need 21 votes sans Northam to pass budgetary legislation (the presiding officer can’t vote on such measures).” It may come down to a suburban Richmond senate district, according to Skelley. “The SD-10 race is a total toss-up, and it may keep everyone up late on Election Night. If Democrats win, they may well regain control of the Senate; if Republicans win, they are almost certain to retain the upper chamber.”
Governor O’Malley challenges Democrats to “find our backbone” on gun control.
There is some good news for Sen. Bernie Sanders, as well. It’s just a snapshot, but Zaid Jilani’s “Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism” at Alternate reports on an October YouGov poll, which indicates that 49 percent of surveyed Democrats say they have a “favorable opinion of socialism,” while 37 percent said they have a “favorable opinion of capitalism.” This is a significant uptick from May in views toward socialism, when YouGov asked the same question and got a 43/43 tie for socialism/capitalism.
Anything can happen in politics, given the right circumstances. Still, I have trouble putting the words “Trump and “electability” together. But apparently 70 percent of Republican voters don’t have that problem, according to a new Associated Press-GFK poll.
Polls, schmolls. “Betting Markets Call Marco Rubio Front-Runner in G.O.P.,” reports Justin Wolfers at The Upshot. Conservative columnist Russ Douthat also sees increasing an likelihood that Rubio wins the GOP nod, despite polling data suggesting the contrary.

From “The Benghazi true believers conduct their witch hunt” by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:

Washington has seen witch hunts before — the McCarthy period comes to mind — but never one where the target was a real woman. As with witches, the Hillary Clinton concocted by the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi does not exist. She is a harridan so evil that she would allow an American installation in Libya to be overrun by terrorists, permit the American ambassador and three others to be killed, cover up the crime with a smokescreen of duplicitous press releases, confine the incriminating truth to a private e-mail server, confide only in a shadowy aide with the code name Sidney Blumenthal and somehow in all this funnel huge amounts of money, possibly billions in Saudi riyals, Chinese renminbi and God only knows how much in bitcoins and Las Vegas casino chips, to a foundation that is doing astounding work in Haiti and Rwanda while, of course, doing something nefarious that will come out only in time. Only Hillary Clinton is capable of such monstrous activity. The Witch!

For Benghazi-obsessed Clinton-haters, she is more like a comic book villain designed for jr. high school C-students, than a reflection of reality. The astounding thing, notes Cohen, is that this is not merely political meme-mongering to them; they actually believe it. As Cohen says,

It occurred to me as I watched the hearing that some Republican members of this gong show of a committee actually believed what they were saying. This was a depressing and frightening realization. I thought all along that the hearings were just about politics — you know, an effort to damage Clinton if and when she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.
…As the hearings droned on, it occurred to me that the Republicans on the committee actually believed in what they were doing. The questions were so stupid, either already answered or contradicted by the evidence — the evidence! damn the evidence — that what we were observing was sort of a religious ritual. Here was a display of belief. Here in the most sinful city of all was a display of faith. They believed. They believed in the evil of Hillary Clinton.
…This was madness on display. This was a glimpse into the mentality of an America that is unhinged by the prospect of a Clinton presidency, which is seen as a continuation of an Obama presidency which, when you think about it, is all rooted in the evil of Roosevelt and how he expanded the federal government. This is a piece of America that ties up Congress, that won’t raise the debt ceiling — the hell with our credit rating — and that could, with only a change of costume, take roles in the musical “Hamilton,” playing the gents who wanted to keep the government small and, by the way, ineffective. Chairman Trey Gowdy — he looks the part. Maybe he can sing.

There is a palpable element of sexism in their demonization of Clinton. You can see the fear and ugly contempt in some of the faces of the Benghazi hearings inquisitors. They simply can’t handle the notion of a strong woman who stands up to them. She must be the embodiment of raw evil. Ditto for the Black president. The infantile ‘Freedom Caucus’ Republicans don’t demonize their white adversaries with equal vehemence — they get a pass on silly memes about their country of origin and faith, if not their patriotism.
What is remarkable is how well Clinton holds up under all this idiocy. After 11 hours of inane ‘gotcha’ questions and snide comments from some of the more witless House Republicans, Clinton likely emerged even stronger to smart voters who are paying attention. She is not only more battle-tested than any of the presidential contenders of either party; the Republicans don’t seem to realize that they are actually improving her political persona, as she learns how to handle their kamikaze attacks with increasing grace, dignity and humor.
Whether Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and presidency or not, she is becoming a better candidate every day. The Democratic party certainly needs more women candidates to win a stable majority, and Clinton’s impressive example may prove instructive for down-ballot women Democrats, as well as for the party’s future presidential candidates.