The following article by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
I have long believed that progressive economic policies are far better for most businesses than the policies of the modern Republican party. Oh, sure, Republicans will do a good job of taking care of their biggest contributors and closest special interest cronies — the Koch brothers won’t have to worry much about pollution laws or anti-trust enforcement if the people they support control the government. But for most businesses, progressive policies are going to help them a lot more than they hurt them. As I have written in the past:

Higher wages mean more disposable income for customers. Paid sick leave and decent health care benefits mean more stability in the workforce for most companies. Breaking up the biggest banks and fair rules for the financial industry would mean far more investment and better terms on loans for most small businesses. Better schools mean more productive workers.
Converting to a green economy and making adequate investments in infrastructure and R&D would mean the creation of thousands of new businesses and millions of new jobs, a lot of them high wage. Vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws and prosecuting businesses that manipulate markets mean that honest businesses can better compete with big corporations who have an unfair advantage.

And there is a ton of data that show the economy consistently does better under Democratic governance than under the Republicans:

Now, though, in the post-apocalyptic moonscape that is the Republican party of 2016, it has become clear that the modern Republicanism of Trump and Cruz is even worse for the business community than the numbers suggest they historically have been. If, as the saying goes, the corporate world craves stability, the Republican party of today threatens instability on a mass scale. It’s bad enough for the business community if the man who has offended almost every demographic group in America outside of non-college educated white men is the Republican nominee.
If the convention becomes a mess, the fight is between Trump and Cruz and some yet to be named establishment savior, then you have the specter of the riots Trump promised if he doesn’t get the nomination — and riots are rarely good for business. The potential of this going from ugly to violent is all too real, and that doesn’t exactly bode well for consumer confidence. We are already seeing this remarkable dynamic play out, as corporate America is in a state trying to figure out what the hell to do about the Republican convention this summer. Check out this rather remarkable article by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman in the NYT the other day.
In it, they say:

Some of the country’s best-known corporations are nervously grappling with what role they should play at the Republican National Convention, given the likely nomination of Donald J. Trump, whose divisive candidacy has alienated many women, blacks and Hispanics.

And they go on to discuss the organizing work being done by some of the leading progressive organizations in the country, including Color of Change, Ultraviolet, and other major groups representing Latinos, Muslims, and the array of other constituencies deeply offended by Trump and Cruz’s rhetoric.
The fundamental problem is this: the U.S.A. is becoming more and more diverse in its racial and ethnic background, its religion, its lifestyle choices and its thinking. Businesses of all stripes want to appeal to those consumers (not to mention markets in the rest of the world) and hire the best people they can from those constituencies. Meanwhile, the Republican party has become the party of reaction against what America has become. The Trump/Cruz party openly embraces racism, nativism, misogyny and lack of toleration. They want to ban Muslims from entering the country and turn their neighborhoods into cordoned off war zones. They want to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. They are enthusiastic and unrepentant about insulting everyone not like them. And this is not good for business.
This conflict for business keeps coming up in different battles. The fights we have seen in Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia over LGBT rights are not going away, and we will see this play out in all kinds of other ways as well.
What is good for business is customers with money in their pockets, young people able to enter the workforce with a good education backing them up, more federal dollars for R&D, 21st century roads and bridges and airports, and a financial system that invested in entrepreneurial start-ups rather than being focused on financial speculation. A good business climate requires communities that welcome every kind of person that wants to work hard and play by the rules, which is why the most diverse and welcoming cities in America tend to be the healthiest economically. Most businesses don’t need lobbyist-crafted special tax loopholes or sweetheart deals, they just want to be able to compete on a level playing field. And this kind of America is what progressives and Democrats are offering them.
I have been in business for most of the last two decades. My partners and I at Democracy Partners have built our business around the idea of embracing, working with, and supporting progressive constituencies. I would suggest that most businesses in America would be well served to do the same.
The Republican party of 2016 has jumped the rails and is about to crash. The business community needs to make sure it doesn’t crash along with them.

At Brookings, William A. Galston analyses data from “a massive rolling survey of more than 42,000 Americans conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute” and concludes it could mean some very bad news for Republicans.
Galston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton and presidential candidates and Brookings Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, explains that “strong majorities of Americans–Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike–favor immigration reforms that would allow immigrants living in the United States illegally to qualify for citizenship if they meet certain requirements.” Further,

There are partisan differences, of course. 72 percent of Democrats support a path to citizenship for immigrants living here illegally, compared to 62 percent of Independents and 52 percent of Republicans. Conversely, 30 percent of Republicans opt for identifying and deporting them, compared to 19 percent of Independents and only 11 percent of Democrats. Still, support is strong across the board. For example, 54 percent of white evangelical Christians favor a path to citizenship.
…In a possible harbinger of the general election this fall, views on immigration vary widely by geographical location. The West and Northeast are more positive than negative about the impact of immigration; the reverse is true for the South and Midwest. Majorities of Americans in 21 states believe that immigration is a net plus for the country, as do pluralities in 20 additional states. Pluralities in 6 states endorse a negative view of immigration, while 3 states are statistically tied.
…On the other hand, 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,” says Galston, “especially if immigration becomes a more prominent issue in the campaign.” And if first or second generation Americans organize opposition to restrictive immigration policies, “Republican candidates who are eager to discuss their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform may ultimately regret that strategy come November.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Wisconsin primary with 56.5 percent of the vote to his adversary’s 43.1 percent, his sixth straight primary victory. “The preliminary Wisconsin results gave 45 pledged delegates to Mr. Sanders and 31 to Mrs. Clinton, who maintains a lead of roughly 250 delegates,” notes Amy Chozick in the New York Times. “Mr. Sanders would need an estimated 56 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to overtake Mrs. Clinton.”
Sanders also outpolled Republican Ted Cruz, who won the GOP primary, while Democratic runner-up Clinton ourtpolled Republican runner-up Trump. Sanders got about 36 thousand more votes than did Cruz and Clinton got 47 thousand more votes than did Trump. However, Cruz, Trump and Kasich received over 54 thousand votes more than did Sanders and Clinton together.
AP’s Chad Day and Emily Swanson share some results from AP/Edison Research exit polling in WI:

On the Democratic side, voters chose Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who they saw as the more exciting, inspiring and honest candidate, according to early results of exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research…But even then, more voters view former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the candidate most likely to beat Trump, who has been the Republican front-runner throughout the primaries.
…Nearly 60 percent say Sanders inspires them more about the future of the country…Democratic voters were more likely to describe Sanders than Clinton as honest. About nine in 10 say so of Sanders, while about 6 in 10 say so of Clinton… But more than half also say Clinton is the candidate best suited to beat Trump. Three-quarters say Clinton has realistic policies, more than the two-thirds who say that of Sanders.

Swanson and Day report that Sanders ran ads emphasizing job losses linked to trade agreements during former President Bill Clinton’s administration. Further,

Democratic voters in Wisconsin are divided on the effect of trade on unemployment, but among those who think trade takes jobs, 6 in 10 supported Sanders…About 4 in 10 Democratic voters say trade with other countries takes away jobs in this country, while 4 in 10 see trade as beneficial, exit polls show. Only about 1 in 10 sees trade as having no effect on jobs in the United States.

As for demographics,

Young voters supported Sanders by an overwhelming margin. More than 6 in 10 men voted for Sanders, while women split about evenly between the two candidates…Six in 10 white voters went for Sanders, while 7 in 10 black voters voted for Clinton. Self-described Democrats split about evenly between the two candidates, while about 7 in 10 independents voted for Sanders.

Regarding the upcomming Democratic primaries in delegate-rich New York (April 19th) and Pennsylvania (April 26th), Chozick writes, “…Wisconsin, with a population that is 88 percent white, does not reflect the larger and more diverse populations of New York and Pennsylvania, more comfortable terrain for Mrs. Clinton.” Chozick adds that, In 2008, “Barack Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton in Wisconsin by 17 percentage points.” In that race, however, Obama had the support of younger voters, who are now favoring Sanders, as well as voters of color.
As a former U.S. Senator from NY, Clinton will likely have an edge in that state, although Sanders has some New York roots, and trade is a significant issue in western parts of NY. Sanders may find stronger than expected support in PA, were job losses from trade deals are a continuing concern.

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.