At The Monkey Cage John Sides addresses an interesting question, “Why are so many Democrats and Republicans pretending to be independents?” Sides interviews via email political scientists Samarra Klar and Yanna Krupnikov, who have written “Independent Politics,” which explores the dynamics behind the increase in the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “Indpendents,” even though numerous studies have documented a sharp rise in political partisanship in recent years, as measured by attitudes toward policies and candidates.
The authors explain that “People “go undercover” — or hide their partisanship behind the label “independent” — because they are too embarrassed to admit their partisanship. Being embarrassed to admit your partisanship leads you to avoid behaviors that are overtly partisan.”
“This is a big problem for democratic politics,” say Krupnikov and Klar, “since overtly partisan behaviors are often the behaviors that have the most political “voice.” In short, independents are just the tip of the much larger, more consequential iceberg of political inaction.”
Unfortunately, the interview doesn’t have much to say about the role of political “branding” or “shaming,” which may be a significant factor in party self-i.d. Republicans have for decades conducted a relentless campaign of villification of the term “Democrat,” likening those who embrace it to weak-minded dimwits who raise taxes, throw money at social problems and advocate government meddling in all aspects of citizens’ lives. Many Democrats have trashed Republicans as greedy defenders of ill-gotten wealth and advocates of racism and other forms of bigotry.
Generally, the Republican message machine has done a better job of implanting the meme in the media, perhaps as a result of superior message discipline and coordination, in stark contrast to Democrats who rarely focus on a single message of the day.
At present, however, more Americans self-i.d. as Democrats than Repubicans. According to a Gallup Poll reported on January 11th, 42% identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, 26% as Republicans. Firther, reports JeffrewyM. Jones at Gallup,

Last year, in addition to the 29% of Americans who identified as Democrats, another 16% said they were independents but leaned toward the Democratic Party, for a combined total of 45% Democrats and Democratic leaners among the U.S. population. Likewise, 26% of Americans identified as Republicans and an additional 16% identified as independents but leaned toward the Republican Party, for a combined total of 42% Republicans and Republican leaners.

Klar and Krupnikov note, however, that “Popular portrayals of partisanship, particularly over the last two decades, have been decidedly negative, focusing on polarization and disagreement.” Further, say the authors:

The parties provide plenty of fodder for this narrative. In the book we coded a series of presidential debates, as just one example. We find that the percentage of phrases used in presidential debates that conveys insurmountable conflict between the two candidates has dramatically increased over recent decades.
When Americans learn about politics, they learn that partisans are angry and stubborn. And, understandably, people don’t want to seem this way to others. With dozens of surveys and experiments, one clear message resonated over and over again: Associating oneself with partisan anger, stubbornness, and inflexibility does not seem like the best way to make a great impression.
On the other hand, being independent and above the partisan morass seems much more impressive. This is yet more evidence that, even in anonymous surveys, people behave in ways that they perceive to be socially desirable and that cast them in the most positive light.

Then there is the Trump phenomenon, which is a growing source of embarassment for Republicans. No one should be surprised if the fallout of his campaign includes a drop in the the percentages of those who call themselves “Republicans.” A Democratic landslide in November may also produce a substantial uptick in self-proclaimed Democrats. Most people would rather hang out with the winners.
The consequences of negative branding of political parties and polarization, say the authors — “a reluctance to discuss politics in social settings, a refusal to wear stickers or put up yard signs, a hesitance to even publicly admit which candidate you’re supporting — are, ultimately, a bad thing for democracy.”
Calling oneself an “Independent” is often based more on a reluctance to indentify with either the Republican or Democratic party, than a genuine political philosophy. But how many of those who call themselves ‘Independents’ do so because they are low-information voters who lack the confidence to be assertive about their beliefs, or conflict-averse individuals who simply dislike arguing?
Increasing the numbers and percentage of those who self-identify as Democrats can certainly be helpful for campaign fund-raising, recruitment of volunteers and GOTV on election day. But the best course for Democrats may be not to worry too much about party self-identification — as long as Dems get most of the votes of those who call themselves ‘Independents.’
When Democrats begin to win stable majorities nation-wide and in most of the states, they will be able to enact legislation that benefits ever-increasing numbers of citizens. When that happens, the Democratic ‘brand’ will attract many more supporters.

The following article is cross-posted from Democracy Corps:
Democracy Corps’ new poll on behalf of WVWVAF shows the country edging toward an earthquake in November.[1] Hillary Clinton already holds a 13-point margin against Donald Trump and a 6-point lead over Ted Cruz, just a point short of Obama’s margin in 2008. But seven new findings in this survey suggest something even more disruptive electorally.
The GOP brand has reached a new historic low, putting the party at risk in swing segments of the electorate.
The GOP civil war is producing an eye-opening numbers of Republicans ready to punish down-ballot candidates for not making the right choice with respect to how to run in relation to the front-runner. Moderate Republicans are already peeling off.
The disengagement pall has been lifted. Our focus groups with white unmarried women, millennials and African Americans showed a new consciousness about the stakes in November. In this poll, the percentage of Democrats giving the highest level of engagement has increased 10 points. The biggest increase in engagement came with college-educated women, putting them on par with Republicans and seniors.
The Trump white working-class strategy is faltering because every white working-class man abandoning the Democratic candidate is being erased by Republican losses with the white working-class women. As you will see, it is statistically impossible for Trump to turn out enough angry white working class men to surpass Clinton.
The Rising American Electorate (RAE) is producing high Democratic margins, with unmarried women producing the highest Democratic vote – and widest marriage gap – we have measured.
After years of stagnating Democratic congressional performance, the Democrats have opened a 6-point lead in the named congressional vote. That is not enough to produce Democratic control, but this trend corresponds to when Democrats began to show life in 2006 and 2008 when they picked up seats. If the Democrats simply reproduced Clinton’s margin with the RAE, the Democratic congressional vote would be at a much higher point. That creates obvious targets to cause an earthquake.
The Democratic “Level the Playing Field” message dominates the Trump nationalist economic message, particularly if it incorporates reforming campaigns – which appeals to progressive base voters – and reforming government – which appeals to swing voters. This bold and populist economic message increases the vote, turnout, and support for congressional Democrats. It is much stronger than Clinton’s current “Ladders of Opportunity” message, which limits her vote in the primary and general. The success of the “Level the Playing Field” message also suggests a united Democratic Party can make further gains.
READ THE FULL MEMO
[1]This national survey took place March 17-24, 2016. Respondents who voted in the 2012 election or registered since were selected from the national voter file. Likely voters were determined based on stated intention of voting in 2016. Margin of error for the full sample is +/-3.27 percentage points at 95% confidence. 65 percent of respondents were reached by cell phone, in order to accurately sample the American electorate.

On the eve of the Wisconsin Primary, Hillary Clinton has delivered what The Nation’s John Nichols has termed “the strongest speech of her campaign.” Clinton made important points which merit consideration from all voters, regardless of who they support at this juncture, particularly because the mainstream media is so distracted by the Trump sideshow. As Nichols writes,

Madison, Wisconsin–Hillary Clinton delivered the strongest speech of her 2016 campaign in Wisconsin this week, and the media barely noticed…In this absurd campaign season, when media outlets devote hours of time to arguments about which Republican candidate insulted which wife, about violent and irresponsible campaign aides, about whatever soap-opera scenario comes to mind, thoughtful discussions of issues get little attention. And deep and detailed discussions of issues get even less coverage.
Clinton’s speech on the importance of filling Supreme Court vacancies, and on the values and ideals that should guide judicial nominations, was a deep and detailed discussion of a fundamental responsibility of presidents. What she said impressed not just her own supporters, who gathered Monday to hear her speak on the University of Wisconsin campus, but also Wisconsinites who are undecided or inclined to vote for someone else in the state’s April 5 primary.

Nichols credits Sen. Sanders with taking the issue seriously, and expresses confidence that he would also nominate an “outstanding” justice to the high court. Sanders, notes Nichols, “has spoken well and wisely about the standards he would apply in doing so.”
As for Clinton, “a Yale Law School graduate, the author of scholarly articles on children and the law, a former law-school instructor and a former board chair of the Legal Services Corporation…When she speaks about the Supreme Court, she does so with insight and passion.” Nichols continues,

What was powerful was not just the Democratic contender’s recognition that “the Court shapes virtually every aspect of life in the United States–from whether you can marry the person you love, to whether you can get healthcare, to whether your classmates can carry guns around this campus.”
It was not even her appropriate observation that, “If we’re serious about fighting for progressive causes, we need to focus on the Court: who sits on it, how we choose them, and how much we let politics–partisan politics–dominate that process.”
What stood out was the way in which Clinton put the current debate over judicial nominations into historical, political and legal context.

In the speech, Clinton blistered Republicans for obstructing a vote and even hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. She explained that “this battle is bigger than just one empty seat on the Court….By Election Day, two justices will be more than 80 years old–past the Court’s average retirement age. The next president could end up nominating multiple justices,” she explained. “That means whoever America elects this fall will help determine the future of the Court for decades to come.”
Clinton then got down to specific cases before the court, including, but not limited to:

“The Court is reviewing how public-sector unions collect the fees they use to do their work. The economic security of millions of teachers, social workers and first responders is at stake. This is something the people of Wisconsin know all too well, because your governor has repeatedly attacked and bullied public sector unions, and working families have paid the price. I think that’s wrong, and it should stop.”
“The Court is reviewing a Texas law imposing unnecessary, expensive requirements on doctors who perform abortions. If that law is allowed to stand, there will only be 10 or so health centers left where women can get safe, legal abortions in the whole state of Texas, a state with about 5.4 million women of reproductive age. So it will effectively end the legal right to choose for millions of women.”
…It’s also put a hold on the president’s clean-power plan. Either America can limit how much carbon pollution we produce, or we can’t. And if we can’t, then our ability to work with other nations to meet the threat of climate change under the Paris agreement is greatly diminished.”

“In a single term,” said Clinton, “the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement.” Echoing the cause first championed by her rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen Sanders, Clinton added, “If the Court doesn’t overturn Citizens United, I will fight for a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in elections,” she said. “It is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics.”
Clinton reiterated her determination to “appoint justices who will make sure the scales of justice are not tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; who will protect a woman’s right to choose, rather than billionaires’ right to buy elections; and who will see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress, not a barrier to it.”
Like Clinton, Sen. Sanders has affirmed the same priorities in selecting future Supreme Court justices. Voters in Wisconsin who value sober and serious appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court will find themselves on solid ground in casting their ballots for either Democrat.

At The American Prospect, Paul Starr’s “The Democrats as a Movement Party” offers several perceptive observations, including: “Sanders’s purism on campaign finance–no super PACs, no big financial donors–can work in states like Vermont with low-cost media markets and in congressional districts with lopsided Democratic majorities. It might even be enough to win a presidential nomination, thanks to all the free media coverage. But it is not feasible in most congressional and statewide elections. Candidates who follow that approach are likely to be outspent by a wide margin, and the difference will doom many of them. That’s why most Democrats who want to reverse Citizens United and see more public financing have nonetheless decided to work within the regime the Supreme Court has established.”
Commenting on a newly-released survey of more than 42,000 Americans conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, William A. Galston notes at Brookings: “Overall, 62 percent of Americans favor a path to citizenship for immigrants living here illegally, and an additional 15 percent support permanent legal residency without the option of citizenship. Only 19 percent favor a policy of identifying and deporting them…the positive view of immigration enjoys majority support in crucial swing states such as Colorado and Florida and a near-majority of 49 percent in Virginia. Support for this view is strong even in long-time red states such as Arizona (55 percent), Texas (52 percent), and Georgia (50 percent). So Republicans may have a fight on their hands in states they have long taken for granted, especially if immigration becomes a more prominent issue in the campaign.”
Tony Monkovic reports at The Upshot: “A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton essentially tied among people 40 and older, but with those under 40 preferring her by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.”
Primary season polls have had their problems this year. But, less than a week out, the underdogs are trending well in WI, according to the respected Marquette Law School poll, which does include cell phones.
If you were a top corporate executive, how much visibility would you want for your company at The Republican National Convention? Not much, seems to be the emerging consensus, in the wake of the violence and chaos of recent Trump rallies and misogynistic utterances opf the GOP front-runner. Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman explain why at The New York Times.
“Democrats are grabbing election-season television time in eight markets from New Hampshire to Nevada as part of their longshot bid to take majority control of the House…The markets cover around a dozen House districts that could see competitive elections in November. They include Denver, Colorado, where GOP Rep. Mike Coffman is being challenged, and West Palm Beach, Florida, where Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy is abandoning his seat to run for the Senate…Other markets where Democrats are reserving time are Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, Iowa; Las Vegas, Nevada; Manchester, New Hampshire; New York City and Philadelphia,” reports AP’s Alan Fram.
At Roll Call Alex Roarty considers the strategic value of U.S. Senate primary endorsements by the Democratic Party.
The Crystal Ball trio, Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley, has a new analysis of the presidential race, assuming a Clinton vs. Trump race, which looks very good for Democrats. As the authors note, “Election analysts prefer close elections, but there was nothing we could do to make this one close. Clinton’s total is 347 electoral votes, which includes 190 safe, 57 likely, and 100 that lean in her direction. Trump has a total of 191 (142 safe, 48 likely, and 1 leans)…Over the years we’ve put much emphasis on the seven super-swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. While some will fall to the Democrats less readily than others, it is difficult to see any that Trump is likely to grab. In fact, four normally Republican states (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri) would be somewhat less secure for the GOP than usual. North Carolina, which normally leans slightly to the GOP, would also be well within Clinton’s grasp in this election after being Mitt Romney’s closest win in 2012.”
This question seems a tad simplistic. A better question for 2016 would be “Is voting based on fear or resentment wrong?”

It’s a pretty bad day for the GOP when a leading columnist and party stalwart excoriates the two front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination as dangerously misguided on the most worrisome national security issue. That’s what WaPo columnist and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson did in his latest column “The anti-Muslim rhetoric of Trump and Cruz only helps terrorists.” An excerpt:

In Ted Cruz’s view, the United States is “voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we are.” He would have us “carpet bomb” the Islamic State and “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized” here at home.
“Look,” says Donald Trump, “we’re having problems with the Muslims.” He would “knock the hell out of ISIS,” close the border to Muslim immigrants “until we figure out what’s going on,” “do a lot more than waterboarding” and target the families of terrorists (at least until he seemed to backpedal).
But here is the problem. Rhetoric that targets “the Muslims” and singles out Americans for suspicion based on nothing more than their faith seriously complicates the war against terrorism…

Gerson goes on to explain that “anti-Muslim rhetoric strains relations with Sunni Muslim countries.” He quotes former acting CIA director Mike Morell, who adds that “It certainly feeds extremist recruitment…but it also makes even moderate Muslims wonder if the extremists may be right.”
Gerson notes further that “anti-Muslim rhetoric needlessly disrupts relationships with American Muslim communities that are often the first to recognize and report radicalization in their midst,” which cripples our intelligence gathering needlessly.
“Alienating Muslim allies, scapegoating Muslim citizens and resigning ourselves to a global religious conflict,” says Gerson, “would grant the terrorists a victory without a battle. Which makes Trump and Cruz either quite cynical or alarmingly oblivious.”
That’s quite an assertion from one of the most respected members of the Republican establishment. With that concern, It’s hard to see how he could even vote for his party’s nominee, since Kasich is now regarded as a fading long-shot, even in the most optimistic scenarios of GOP moderates.
Trump seems to have a singular talent for provoking his GOP adversaries to engage in lower levels of political discussion. As Gerson’s fellow syndicated columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. put it, “The terrorist attacks in Belgium brought out the worst in Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Cruz demonstrated that his only focus right now is to find ways of out-Trumping Trump. He seeks words that sound at least as intolerant and as dangerous to civil liberties as the formulations that regularly burst forth from the Republican front-runner.”
The mutual intemperance of the two GOP aspirants has spilled over into areas long regarded as taboo in previous presidential campaigns. Gerson’s column punctuated a bad week for Republicans, which included jr. high school trash talk about each others wives. The exchange concluded with Cruz calling Trump a “sniveling coward,” an extraordinary ad hominem attack for a former college debate champion — which should pretty much end prospects for a unity ticket bearing both of their names.
“With large parts of the Republican establishment giving up on Kasich and embracing Cruz as the last anti-Trump hope,” says Dionne, “we can now look forward to a GOP race to the bottom in which fear itself is the only thing its leading candidates have to offer.”
If American swing voters decide in November that a cool head is needed to navigate the dangerous shoals of global terrorism, the Republicans may be facing a rout of historic proportions.

This is a good start, from the DSCC:

This week, the DSCC launched the “Party of Trump” campaign, a sustained campaign that will feature spending across platforms including television, radio, online, Twitter and Facebook, as well as up to the minute “Party of Trump” news alerts, highlighting Republicans’ continued support of Donald Trump as the nominee. With another big round of victories on Tuesday, Trump is even closer to becoming the Republicans’ nominee. Republican Senate incumbents and candidates are to blame for the rise of this toxic, divisive element that has overtaken their party, and they’ve all pledged to support Trump as the nominee. The DSCC’s “Party of Trump” campaign will remind voters that Republican Senate candidates are running in lockstep with Trump and his toxic rhetoric.

And here’s an opening ad to help the kick-off:

Not bad for openers. It appears that the DSCC is putting more brain-power and video muscle and into the effort to take back the Senate, which is long-overdue. There is enough material to make many such ads anchoring GOP senators and senate candidates to Trump and policies that are even worse than some of his positions.
With respect to Trump, there are gobs of clever amateur videos already up on Youtube, and the DSCC should be mining them on a daily basis. Now that Facebook has become the town square for ever-increasing numbers of Americans, the party that masters its potential will likely be well-rewarded in November.

The following article by Democratic strategist Roberrt Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
The rise of Donald Trump — and the events of the last week — have promoted serious discussion of the question of whether fascism can in fact triumph in the United States of America.
I do not raise that question simply as a means of slurring an opposition political candidate, or movement. I raise it as a technical, analytic question that deserves a serious answer.
In 1935, during the rise of fascism in Europe, the novelist Sinclair Lewis published a semi-satirical novel entitled It Can’t Happen Here. In the novel, a United States senator named Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip is elected to the presidency, demanding that America return to patriotism and traditional values, and promising dramatic economic and social reforms. He argued that America needed a strong man to make the country great again.
After he is elected, Windrip imposes a semi-plutocratic totalitarian form of leadership supported by a paramilitary reminiscent of Europe’s brown shirts.
Now, 80 years later, the question of whether it could happen here once again confronts America.
Donald Trump, like the fascist leaders of Europe in the 1930s and their counterparts in South America in the 1970s and ’80s, argues that he — a strong leader — can “Make America Great Again.” Like earlier fascists, he addresses legitimate economic discontent by targeting international enemies, and internal threats that must be expunged from the body politic. In Trump’s case, the “internal enemy” is comprised of “illegal” immigrants who are “rapists and criminals” and who, he argues, take American jobs. But they also include Muslims — of any stripe. And, he doesn’t mind whipping up latent white racism wherever he can find it.
Like other fascist movements, Trump says out loud — and legitimates — the kind of hateful, violent language that was previously whispered only in the privacy of people’s living rooms.
And like previous generations of fascists, Trump frames his rhetoric in populist terms, while actually promoting policy solutions that would instead benefit plutocrats like himself.
And it’s worth noting, that while he doesn’t always use exactly the same rhetoric, Senator Ted Cruz shares many of Trump’s values.
It’s not hard to see why Trump has been successful in Republican primary politics.
Much of the elite media and Washington political class was blindsided by his appeal. But this is because many of them missed the central underlying fact of American politics: normal people haven’t had a raise in thirty years.
In the years 1986 to 2016, the real per capita gross domestic product — the best measure of the economic property of a society — increased 48 percent.
But virtually every dime of that increase went to the top 1 percent — and often the top .01 percent — of the population. Median household incomes barely budged. Measured in 2013 dollars, median household income was $50,488 in 1986. In 2013 it was $51,930.
There has been some fluctuation over the period. After dropping to $48,884 in 1993 — the first year of Bill Clinton’s presidency — it increased to $56,080 in 1999. A year and a half later Clinton turned over the Oval office to George W. Bush.
Of course the economic record of Bush ended in utter catastrophe with the Great Recession. Since then, President Obama has built the economy back with a record 72 months of successive private sector job growth. But median household income still isn’t moving because the Republicans in Congress and the rules of the economic game still allow the corporate establishment to hang onto most of the fruits of that growth.
The iconic political result is the middle class Iowa focus group participant who said: “I haven’t had a raise in 30 years — and all of the growth has gone to those guys at the top, and all of the poor people at the bottom.”
Democrats Clinton and Sanders have answered by pointing to the 1 percent, the corporate CEOs and the wealthy — a political message which has the advantage of being true.
Trump and the Republicans have taken the opposite tack — whipping up antagonism to “immigrants,” “lazy people who don’t get a job,” and — frankly — anyone who is “not like you.” This of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth.
We know empirically the effect that increasing income inequality has on political polarization.
Several years ago, political scientists Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal published a study showing a direct relationship between economic inequality and polarization in American politics.
They measured political polarization in congressional votes over the last century, and found a direct correlation with the percentage of income received by the top 1 percent of the electorate.
They also compared the Gini Index of income inequality with congressional vote polarization of the last half-century and found a comparable relationship.
Economic stagnation is the breeding ground for fear, racial hatred and extremist rhetoric. That is particularly true if other forms of social change simultaneously cause people to fear for their personal meaning and place in the world. An increasingly diverse America, the redefinition in relationships between men and women, gay and straight, is frightening to some Americans.
Racism is not the same thing as racial prejudice. Racism develops where a group of people’s meaning and status in life are tied to their self-definition, as “not Black,” or “not Brown.”. If personal meaning doesn’t come from excelling in your work life, or economic success, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced that they need to define themselves through race and nationality.
It is no accident that fascism arose in Europe out of the economic depression of the 1930s, and in South America in a period of economic stagnation.
And Trump’s ability to dominate the Republican political dialogue is also the direct result of the behavior of Republican elites — ever since the resurgence of the “Conservative Movement” in the 1980s and especially since the Gingrich “revolution” and the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency.
The GOP has been divided for decades into its social conservative/populist wing, and the business wing. In fact the business wing always called the shots — and used the mass wing of the party as cannon fodder to win elections so they could cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce government “regulation”, and cut trade deals that benefit huge corporations.

Read more…

Paul Krugman has what may well be the best column you will find about the politics of trade in the 2016 presidential elections. Anyone with interest in this issue should read the whole thing. A couple of excerpts:

The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties — Trump is trying to become America’s Mussolini, Sanders at worst America’s Michael Foot — Trump has been tilling some of the same ground. So here’s the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political traction?

If so, we can expect tweaks in messaging on the part of presidential, and perhaps down-ballot, candidates to amp up their protectionist cred. Krugman cautions, however:

You do want to be careful about announcing a political moment, given how many such proclamations turn out to be ludicrous. Remember the libertarian moment? The reformocon moment? Still, a protectionist backlash, like an immigration backlash, is one of those things where the puzzle has been how long it was in coming. And maybe the time is now.

Krugman critiques the overstated arguments of protectionists and globalists alike, and notes the limited ability of the candidates to do what they say about managing global trade. He concludes, however, by expressing his strong belief that “the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.”
A sobering thought for voters — and for the leading candidates as they compete to win the support of American workers, a great many of whom have become deeply distrustful of U.S. trade policy.

At Maddowblog Steve Benen’s “Sanders makes the case for a single-issue candidacy” sheds light, not only on the unique strategy of a major presidential candidate, but also on what many believe to be the greatest threat to American democracy. As Benen explains, following the last democratic debate:

…Last night, I believe for the first time, Sanders acknowledged that one of Clinton’s criticisms of his candidacy is probably correct.
“Let us be clear, one of the major issues Secretary Clinton says I’m a one-issue person, well, I guess so. My one issue is trying to rebuild a disappearing middle class. That’s my one issue.”

“Sanders is still ‘talking about dozens of issues,'” says Benen, “but as of last night, he’s effectively making the case that the issues that are most important to him – economic inequality, an unfair tax system, trade, Wall Street accountability, etc. – fall under the umbrella of a broader issue: rebuilding the middle class.
Benen notes that “Clinton’s principal criticism of Sanders is that his areas of interest are far too narrow…Clinton wants voters to see Sanders as a well-intentioned protest candidate. The White House is about breadth and complexity, the argument goes, and even if you agree with Sanders, it’s hard to deny his principal focus on the one issue that drives and motivates him…A president, Clinton wants Democratic voters to believe, doesn’t have the luxury of being “a one-issue person.” A president’s responsibilities are simply too broad to see every issue through narrowly focused lens.”
But Sanders no longer bothers to deny it; he puts it in broader perspective to refine his image as the candidate who stands most clearly as a genuine champion of economic justice for everyone who is struggling to have a decent middle class life. “Sanders,” says Benen, “is willing to gamble that progressive voters will back him anyway. It’s a risk that will likely make or break his candidacy in the coming weeks.”
Benen adds “Democrats have been focused on the interests of the middle class for generations, and when Sanders made his “one-issue” declaration, the audience applauded.” it’s a pretty clever way to turn one of Clinton’s attack memes into a net positive. Certainly it helps that he backs it up with his policy regarding contributions to his campaign.
Clinton has evolved into a sharp debater, and Benen notes that “during last night’s debate, Clinton let Sanders’ acknowledgement go without comment – she did not repeat the “single-issue candidate” criticism.”
Sanders undoubtedly believes many voters will agree with him. But he also holds the conviction that, win or lose, America will not be able to create a better society until the central issue of economic justice is addressed with meaningful reforms.
Calling Sanders a “one-issue candidate” was always a gross oversimplification. As a congressman and U.S. Senator for 25 years, his career has included stands on every major issue, from the invasion of Iraq, to reproductive rights, gun control and environmental reforms, to name just a few, and he has provided thoughtful and often controversial policy positions on all such issues during his tenure.
Sanders can hold his own on any important issue. He could easily choose to become another political leader who spends his time opining about everything. But he believes that greater good — and a stronger image — can come from mining public concern about corporate abuses of working people and our political system.
It’s an interesting strategy, more pro-active than just responding to issues du jour defined by the media. Elevating this concern to a central focus may be a gamble. But most informed voters now have a pretty clear understanding of what he stands for, and it has served him well so far.

If you were a candidate running for any elective office, you should be delighted to have the support of Markos Moulitsas, Founder/Publisher of Daily Kos and likely the most influential progressive journalist on the blogosphere.
That’s essentially what Hillary Clinton got on Friday, when Moulitsas wrote a blogpost, “March 15, and Daily Kos transition to General Election footing,” urging Kos writers, commenters and readers to support her candidacy if she is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination by March 15. He would also support Sen. Bernie Sanders, if he is still competitive by mid-March. As Kos writes,

…if Sanders eats into Clinton’s big delegate lead by March 15, then we carry on. But if he doesn’t, then on March 15 this site officially transitions to General Election footing. That means, we will focus our attention not just on Donald Trump or his rivals, but also on the Senate, the House, and state-level races. If you want the most liberal government possible, we aren’t going to get that this cycle in the White House, but we can keep building the bench down the ballot so that come 2024, we have lots of great liberals to choose from…But it does us no good to keep fighting over something that is already determined. People have voted, and the numbers are the numbers. It’s time to move on and focus on what binds us together.

In his post, Kos also blasts the super delegates system, the primary/caucuses process and calendar, which favors less diverse states Iowa and New Hampshire, and he calls for the resignation of DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Kos regards the future of the U.S. Supreme Court as the most pivotal reason why Dems must begin to unify this month:

Do you know what else we all agree on? The Supreme Court… Even assuming the worst crazy shit people say about Clinton, fact is the next president will get to determine the Supreme Court’s direction for at least a generation, if not longer than that. It will be a new liberal Supreme Court that will overturn Citizens United, that will protect voting rights, that will protect labor unions, that will end partisan gerrymandering, that will undo the myriad roadblocks to citizens participation in our democracy–the very roadblocks that are keeping the Republican Party nationally relevant when they should be a rump regional party.
Clinton critics like to cite the presidency of Bill as evidence of her various horrible traits, yet it was Bill who gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and I dare any of you to find reasons to criticize either of those two judicial heroes. If Hillary is like Bill (and she’s not, but let’s assume), why wouldn’t her Supreme Court justices follow suit?

Moulitsas then lays down the guidelines for future postings on Daily Kos. “I will no longer tolerate malicious attacks on our presumptive presidential nominee or our presidential efforts…” He includes some pretty specific bullet points, including, but not limited to:

• No attacks on Hillary Clinton using right-wing tropes of sources. She’s had 30 years of bullshit flung at her from the Right, there’s no need to have Daily Kos give them an assist.
• Constructive criticism from the Left is allowed. There’s a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Do I need to spell it out? It’s the difference between “We need to put pressure on her to do the right thing on TPP” versus “she’s a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.” In general, if you’re resorting to cheap sloganeering like “oligarch” or “warmonger” or “neocon”, you might want to reframe your argument in a more substantive, issue-focused and constructive matter. Again, I’m not interested in furthering the Right’s hate-fueled media machine. If that’s what you want, might I suggest Free Republic?
• Saying you won’t vote, or will vote for Trump, or will vote for Jill Stein (or another Third Party) is not allowed. If that’s how you feel, but have other places in which you can be constructive on the site, then keep your presidential feelings to yourself. Those of us who care about our country and it’s future are focused on victory. If you aren’t, then it’s a big internet, I suggest you find more hospitable grounds for your huffing, puffing, and stomping of feet.

There will probably be some negative fallout about Kos’s post in lefty purist circles. Others may argue that it’s a little premature. But to paraphrase Spike Lee, “If you don’t like my movie, make your own movie.” Kos has built a hell of an internet community with his hard work, dedication and creativity, and he gets to make the rules on his website.
The impressive turnout of Republicans in the primaries and caucuses does suggest that Kos is right that Democrats should begin unifying sooner than later. Whatever edge Dems had in voter turnout mechanics has clearly evaporated. GOP GOTV operations are now state-of-the-art, and they are going to have all of the money they need.
In his HuffPo report on Kos’s statement, Daniel Marans quotes the head of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

“Hillary Clinton was made a better candidate thanks to Bernie Sanders engaging her in a race to the top on popular economic populism issues like debt-free college, expanding Social Security, and jailing Wall Street bankers who break the law,” said Adam Green, PCCC’s co-founder, in a statement. “Had she run away from Elizabeth Warren-style ideas instead of working to ride an economic populist tide, many Super Tuesday results likely would have been different.”
“The primary continues — but no matter who wins, the Democratic Party has begun to be fundamentally remolded in Elizabeth Warren’s image,” Green added in the statement. “Armed with popular economic populist themes, Democrats are better positioned to win in November.”

The worst mistake would be for Democrats to become complaisant or overconfident as a result of the GOP’s recent meltdown. Numerous polls show that American voters are evenly polarized on many issues, and it’s not hard to imagine a number of events occurring which could make the 2016 general election razor-close. Internecine bickering is no longer an option for Democrats who seek a progressive victory in November. Save that for after the election. As Moultsas explains,

After Clinton is elected, we’ll all have plenty of reasons to be upset at her and criticize her actions. That’s what would happen even if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren got elected, because no one can ever live up to any good liberal’s hopes and expectations. Politics is messy and requires compromises and decisions that will never match our ideal. But hey, we’ll push Clinton hard when it requires, and we’ll keep working for a more inclusive and democratic Democratic Party.

“But now,” concludes Kos, “we’ve got to start focusing on the immediate task at hand, making sure we keep the White House, win back the Senate and maybe even the House, and lock down the Supreme Court for a liberal generation. Sound good?”