In the current issue of the New Yorker, John Cassidy interviews TDS Founding Editor Ruy Teixeira on the topic “Could Donald Trump Win the General Election?” From Cassidy’s report on the interview:

Teixeira, who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, co-authored a paper titled “The Path to 270 in 2016,” which argued that demographics continue to favor the Democrats in assembling a majority in the Electoral College.
In conversation, Teixeira began by reviewing some figures that he and his colleagues have put together. Between 1976 and 2012, the percentage of white voters in the U.S. electorate declined from eighty-nine per cent to seventy-four per cent. In 2016, that number is likely to fall another two per cent, Teixeira said. That means the minority vote will rise from twenty-six per cent to twenty-eight per cent. About half of that increase reflects the growing Hispanic population; the other half is accounted for by rising numbers of Asians and peoples of other ethnicities.

Cassidy asks Teixeira if Trump could win, as some observers have ventured, by turning out enough discontented white working class voters in the rust belt. Teixeira responded that “It is not crazy. But I think it would be very hard to pull off.” Cassidy adds,

Teixeira went on to explain that he was skeptical in part because, on a national basis, Trump’s support among white voters isn’t quite as strong as it sometimes appears to be. While he is attracting a lot of people to his rallies and to the Republican voting booths, it is a mistake to believe that these people are wholly representative of that segment of the electorate. “We are talking about the most alienated white non-college voters, and some college-educated voters,” Teixeira said. “The most totally pissed-off ones.” Among white Americans as a whole, including those who vote Republican, Teixeira reminded me, there are many people with moderate or liberal views. And in order to win the election, Texeira went on, Trump would need to rack up huge majorities of the white vote in some parts of the country where that vote has traditionally been relatively liberal, compared to the white vote in the South.
…Teixeira cited some more figures for individual states, distinguishing between white working-class voters who didn’t go to college–Trump’s base–and white college-educated voters. In Ohio in 2012, Mitt Romney won the white working-class vote by a sixteen-per-cent margin: fifty-seven per cent to forty-one per cent. According to Teixeira’s projections, Trump, to carry Ohio in November, would need to increase this margin to twenty-two or twenty-three points. “That’s a big ask,” Teixeira said. And Trump would also need to retain, or even increase, Romney’s ten-point margin among college-educated white Republicans, even though at least some members of this group may be sufficiently put off by Trump’s extremism to stay at home, or even to switch to the Democrats.

Teixeira cites the 2012 white working-class votes in Wisconsin and Minnesota, which were evenly-split, as illustrative of the challenge facing the GOP nominee in those states in 2016. In addition, writes Cassidy, “The biggest weakness in the argument that Trump can win, Teixeira said, is that it rests on the notion that he can raise turnout among such voters, particularly working-class ones, without provoking a similarly high turnout among anti-Trump voters, particularly people of color.”
“I find it just so implausible that we could have this massive white nativist mobilization without also provoking a big mobilization among minority voters,” Teixeira said. “It is kind of magical thinking that you could do one thing and not have the other.”
Cassidy cautions, however, that “On the other side of the ledger, Trump has been trampling on established political wisdom since he launched his campaign. So far, it has worked for him.” But Teixeira responds that, even so, a Trump sweep of the needed states would also require a significant dip in African American and Latino turnout — not a wise bet in 2016.
For a more detailed look at Ruy Teixeira’s cutting edge research on the demographic dynamics and political attitudes underlying the 2016 elections, see his recent publication with co-authors John Halpin and Rob Griffin, “The Path to 270 in 2016” and “America’s Electoral Future: How Changing Demographics Could Impact Presidential Elections from 2016 to 2032,” written with William H. Frey and Robert Griffin.

Suzy Khimm, a former senior editor of The New Republic, addresses a question of consequence at The New York Times Opinion Pages, “Can the Sanders Movement Go Local?” It’s an important issue, whether or not Sanders wins the Democratic nomination and the presidency, as Khimm explains:

…The test of the “political revolution” Mr. Sanders has started won’t just be the strength of his primary challenge, but also whether his movement can survive without him and help get other candidates elected…Despite a revival of movement activism, the left has struggled over the last eight years to achieve broad electoral success outside the White House. Many of the voters who propelled Barack Obama to victory twice didn’t show up for midterm elections, helping Republicans recapture both houses of Congress by 2014 and win control of 31 governorships and nearly 70 percent of state legislative chambers.

Khimm adds “During the heyday of Occupy, many activists rejected electoral politics, unlike their Tea Party counterparts, who leapt into races at every level of government, and scored huge victories for conservatives.” She quotes Democratic consultatn Joe Trippi, who explains, “We’ve been doing this backwards. The mistake is thinking that we get behind a progressive candidate for president, and that will solve all our problems.” Further, notes Khimm,

One of the biggest problems facing the left is structural. Whether by choice or circumstance, insurgent Democrats haven’t relied on the party establishment to build their support, so the party apparatus is ill equipped to capitalize on that momentum, which is particularly problematic in midterm elections and on the state and local levels.
Insurgent candidates can build up huge email lists and an army of eager volunteers, but if they’re operating independently from the party establishment there’s no obvious way for them to pass that knowledge on to the next breakout candidate. “There’s no progressive repository to keep the movement intact for the next progressive candidate — or the progressive candidate in California or Texas or wherever,” Mr. Trippi said.

Conservatives, fueled by GOP donors like the Koch brothers, have out-organized Democrats at the state and local levels, then gerrymandered districts to lock Democrats out with extraordinary effectiveness. But the good news, says, Khimm, is that Sanders supporters are now beginning to run down-ballot in increasing numbers.
There is a concern that a Clinton victory might slow the trend. But Sen. Sanders is himself every inch a long-haul social change advocate, and he well-understands that a permanent grass roots movement, based on his policies, is imperative for securing meaningful reforms. The challenge is crafting the structures that can instill his message in his young followers, who can carry his torch of hope into the future and win state and local elections with ever-increasing effectiveness — regardless of who is president.

Can Bernie Sanders Bounce Back on Super Tuesday? and 4 Big Questions About the Republican Race on Super Tuesday, both by Ed Kilgore at New York magazine.
What You Need To Know About Super Tuesday: Thirteen states vote Tuesday in presidential primaries or caucuses — the most in 2016 by Daniel Marans at HuffPo.
What to Watch For on Super Tuesday by Jonathan Martin and Nate Cohn at The New York Times.
The complex math behind the Super Tuesday delegate race, explained by Philip Bump at The Fix.
Super Tuesday Will Be Our Best Look Yet At What Voters Think About The Economy by Ben Casselman at FiveThirtyEight.
First Read: Four Super Tuesday Storylines to Watch by Chuck Todd, Martin Murray and Carrie Dann at MSNBC First Read.
What to Watch for on Super Tuesday by Josh Vorhees at Slate.com.
Tuesday primary preview: How Donald Trump could totally ruin life for GOP incumbents by Jeff Singer at Daily Kos.
Super Tuesday: Five things to watch for by Stephanie Condon and Steve Chaggaris at CBS News.
Super Tuesday: What to watch by Eric Bradner at CNN Politics.
Super Tuesday 2016: 12 states are voting. Here’s when we’ll know results by Libby Nelson at Vox.
Super Tuesday: Here’s What Goes Down by Mikaela Lefrak at The New Republic.

At Brookings, John Hudak, Senior Fellow for Governance Studies, explains why “If Clinton wins in November, she’ll have Sanders to thank“:

Sanders has managed something Clinton has been ill-equipped to do: connect with a variety of demographic groups who love Barack Obama but feel left behind by Obama’s recovery. Clinton has cloaked herself in the Obama record, and, in the process, she has alienated those who have not reaped the fruits of his progressive labor.
…No one expected that so many Americans would “feel the bern.” Media, the party, voters, and Brooklyn were all caught off guard by Sanders’ appeal. Yes, Sanders can be labeled a one issue candidate, or too extreme, or unelectable, but there is a reality in his message. He’s tapped into a growing discontent among liberals, moderates, and conservatives that the system is stacked against them and change was necessary. Americans are angry, and love him or hate him, Bernie Sanders has effectively talked to those angry voters. Hillary Clinton has not.
Although Bernie Sanders is less likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee now than he was even a week ago, that should not diminish his importance in this race and the impact he has had on Secretary Clinton.

Hudak adds that “He ran and continues to run a campaign of big ideas that connects with many voters…young voters, voters of color, moderates, conservatives, and anyone who feels betrayed by the current state of American politics. That is a big group that most candidates–Clinton and every Republican candidate but Trump–has underestimated.”
As the first woman candidate for president to be widely-considered a front-runner, Clinton deserves great credit for her impressive accomplishments and it would be folly for any of her adversaries to underestimate her capabilities. She has survived a couple of decades of relentless villification and emerged tougher, battle-tested and well-prepared to prevail over the most obstructionist political party in U.S. history.
But, like all candidates, Clinton has her vulnerabilities, and Hudak credits Sanders with helping her face her shortcomings as a candidate:

…He has injected passion into the Democratic race–a passion Clinton would not inspire if she marched to the convention in Philadelphia devoid of competition, readying herself for a coronation…Sanders supporters have pushed Clinton in directions she never expected to go. They have made her change her language, her message, and her campaign style. It is not the path she wanted, but it is probably the path that best serves her. Bernie Sanders has pushed her to the left on many issues, but he has also made Clinton a better candidate. And my guess is she knows it.
…He brought to the surface a variety of issues that Clinton had to address–income inequality, corporate power, campaign finance, and others–that she may have only paid lip service to but for a legitimate primary challenge. Sanders may not have changed Clinton’s mind, but he surely changed her message, and that is a good thing for any Democrat.
She has been forced to take on a series of issues that matter to Americans of all stripes, and she will enter the general election campaign stronger for it. Combine all of that with the passing of Justice Scalia and the prospect that the Senate may hold up the confirmation of his replacement, the Clinton candidacy and its prospective Supreme Court pick becomes all the more important in the grander scheme of American politics. The desire to overturn Citizens United seems almost liturgical to the Sanders campaign and must now be a central part of the thinking of a future Clinton administration…He pushed Secretary Clinton to think and talk and address a series of issues that will make her a better candidate in November. That rhetoric will ultimately help bring many Sanders supporters into her corner.

“Sanders’ insurgence may not have been the external shock Clinton wanted or expected,” adds Hudak, “but it may have been the medicine she needed.”
Hudak is not worried that Sanders supporters will not vote if Clinton is nominated. Even though Clinton may not inspire them like Sanders, “the prospect of a Trump or Cruz or Rubio candidacy will.” Further, concludes Hudak, “In 11 months, if Hillary Clinton stands on the West Front of the Capitol to swear the presidential oath, she should thank the junior senator from Vermont for part of that success.

“A large majority of Democrats call income inequality a very important issue, and half of them think regulation of financial markets after the 2008 financial crisis did not go far enough, according to a new poll suggesting that many in the party are receptive to economic issues championed by Bernie Sanders in his bid for the White House,” reports the Associated Press. The poll, which was conducted Jan. 14-17 by the A.P. and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, has a 3.6 margin of error.
Further, adds the AP, more than three-quarters of Democratic poll respondents agree that “reducing the gap between rich and poor is a very or extremely important issue for the next president to address.” Also 8 in 10 Democrats and 3 in 10 Republicans, believe that “it’s the government’s responsibility to reduce those income differences. Overall, 56 percent of Americans say so, while 42 percent think it’s not.”
With respect to the minimum wage, the poll found more agreement with Hillary Clinton’s support of a $12 hourly minimum wage than the $15 standard favored by Sen. Sanders:

Among all Americans, slightly over half favor increasing the minimum wage to $12 an hour from the current $7.25, while just a third support increasing it to $15 an hour. Even Democrats are much more likely to favor a minimum wage increase to $12 an hour (68 percent) than to $15 an hour (49 percent).

When it comes to regulating financial markets, the poll found that 42 percent of all those surveyed and half of Democrats Americans believe that regulations put in place in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown “did not go far enough,” while 31 percent of all the respondents felt they were “about right,” with 25 percent saying “they went too far.” Only a third of Republicans surveyed felt that financial regulations put in place did not go for enough.
For more in-depth findings of the poll, read here.

“Senate Republicans still divided over strategy for an Obama court nominee” by WaPo’s Mike DeBonis and Juliet Eilperin updates the GOP’s SCOTUS battle plans.
NYT’s Upshot staff posts a round-up, “Where the Senate Stands on Nominating Scalia’s Supreme Court Successor.”
GOP icon former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor urges Republican leaders to “get on with it” and “And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It’s hard.”
The Upshot’s Tony Monkovic explains “Clinton, Sanders and the Underrated Power of the Black Voter.”
Professor Yoav Fromer writes in his Washington Post op-ed, “It’s fair for Democrats to press Sanders on how, exactly, he intends to achieve his “political revolution.” What is unfair is to dismiss his policies outright because they seem too far from the mainstream. Concepts from the left fringe have, throughout American history, served as corrective rather than destructive devices. Instead of smashing institutions, these ideas have mostly provided a moral compass for repairing them; many radical-worker, populist, progressive and even socialist ideas didn’t necessarily undermine the mainstream Democratic agenda as much as reorient it toward more urgent and just directions. Sanders’s push to fix a rigged economy and curtail campaign cash may shape the future Democratic agenda, regardless of whether he gets the nomination. (Clinton’s attempt to brandish her anti-Wall Street credentials shows that this shift has already begun.)…There is little doubt that Clinton’s pragmatic sensibility is invaluable for getting things done. But the revolutionary tradition in which Sanders stands can make sure they get done for the right reasons. In this way, the center and the fringe are symbiotic. Ideology is a terrible tool for governing but a necessary reminder of what government is for.”
At Salon.com Elias Isquith has an interview with Stan Greenberg on the topic of current political attitudes of millenials.
At Daily Kos Kerry Eleveld reports “GOP campaigns prep for worst-case scenario: A brokered national convention.”
“Ignore the white working class at your peril, political parties” writes Ron Grossman in a Newsday op-ed.
Only an Obama can go to Cuba, the first president to do so since Coolidge in 1928.

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross posted from HuffPo:
Just when you thought that the fringe right-wing politicians who have taken over the Republican Party couldn’t veer any further out of the American political mainstream, they prove once again that they are willing to discard any democratic institution or constitutional principle that stands in their way.
In fact, for all their talk of “original intent” or strict adherence to the rule of law, or the language and spirit of the Constitution, they couldn’t give a rat’s back end when their radical right wing agenda is in jeopardy.
Without even waiting to see whom the President would nominate to the Supreme Court to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Senate GOP leadership has announced that they will reject any Obama appointment. Wouldn’t matter to them, they say, if the nominee had the qualifications of say, Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party.
No they say, in the words of that legal genius Marco Rubio, “There comes a point in the last year of the president, especially in their second term, where you stop nominating, or you stop the advice and consent process.” Rubio wants to wait until a new President is elected — which, of course, he hopes will be him.
GOP leaders claim there is “no precedent” for confirming a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. That is empirically wrong.
Actually, Marco, there is no point in time when, under the Constitution — or historically — Presidents stop nominating.
In fact, six Justices have been confirmed in presidential election years, including three Republicans. And another 11 have been confirmed in non-Presidential election years.
Most recently, Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in February 1988.
It would be completely irresponsible to let a vacancy on the Court extend into 2017. If the Senate fails to act, the Supreme Court will go for well over a year — stretching over two terms of the Court, with a vacancy.
That would be unprecedented for the modern Supreme Court. In fact, since 1980, Congress has almost never left any vacancy during a single Supreme Court session — and there has never been a vacancy spanning more than one term.
In fact, there has never been a vacancy for longer than four months during a single Supreme Court session.
The President has a Constitutional responsibility to appoint successors for vacancies on the Supreme Court. And the Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to consider those nominees.
Since 1980, there have been 12 appointments to the Supreme Court. Every one of these has been given a prompt hearing and vote within 100 days. There are 340 days left in President Obama’s term of office — plenty of time for nominees to be approved.
And it’s worth noting that the previous 11 times that the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court justice nominated by a president of the opposite party, it’s been Democrats confirming Republicans. They include Justices Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Harry Blackmun, Charles Whitaker, William Brennan, John Marshall Harlan and Chief Justice Warren Burger.

Read more…

In his Mother Jones post, “The 2016 Election Is Likely to Be a Close One,” Kevin Drum quotes from an L.A. Times article by Maria Bustillos, who writes in making her case for Sen. Sanders that, “the very clownishness of that madly tootling Republican vehicle, I believe, virtually ensures that whichever Democrat secures the nomination will win the general.”
Drum warns, however, that this is a very dangerous assumption for progressives. “Democrats have held the White House for eight years and the economy is in okay but not great shape. Those are not great fundamentals for a Democratic victory.”
Given the chaotic mess of the Republican campaign for their party’s presidential nomination, it’s understandable why many Democrats are expecting an easy victory in November. There is reason to hope for a Democratic landslide, but assuming it will happen is a big mistake. Further, adds Drum,

Now, it’s also true that demographic shifts are making the electorate steadily more Democratic. And candidate quality matters: If Republicans nominate a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz, they’ll be shooting themselves in the foot. Nonetheless, every bit of history and political science modeling suggests that this will at least be a close election–and possibly one that favors Republicans at the start.
You should vote for whomever appeals to you. But if you’re operating under the delusion that Democrats can literally nominate anyone they want because nobody sane will vote for any of those crazy Republicans, you’d better think twice. This is a belief that betrays both a lazy liberal insularity about the nature of the electorate and an appalling amnesia about a political era that’s brought us Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, Paul Ryan, and the entire tea party. This election is no runaway, folks.

A sobering assessment, and one which ought to cause supporters of both Clinton and Sanders to reject overconfidence about the general election. American voters are evenly divided on many issues, and numerous factors, including a national security crisis, a sudden economic downturn and voter suppression, to name a few possibilities, could tip the election to the right. (This video clip should be required viewing for overconfident Democrats).
A Democratic victory in November will certainly require an all-hands-on-deck commitment to electing the Democratic nominee, even if their first choice doesn’t win the nomination.