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?”

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.