It doesn’t do one’s state a lot of good when top entertainers, like Bruce Springsteen, boycott it because of homophobic policies rammed through the state legislature at the behest of wingnut evangelicals and signed by the Governor.
It makes even less sense when your state is a possible beachhead for Democrats in the South, since Obama won it in 2008, especially in a pivotal election year in which Democrats are gaining momentum and a U.S. Senate seat now held by Republican Richard Burr is vulnerable. As Crystal Ball’s Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley recently wrote,

Having easily dismissed a trio of primary challengers on March 15, Sen. Richard Burr (R) can now focus on the general election, where he will face ex-state Rep. Deborah Ross (D), who won her party’s nomination to take on the incumbent. To a greater extent than Missouri, the new rating in North Carolina comes down to basic coattail math: If the GOP presidential nominee falters, the Tar Heel State will likely be the first red-state domino to fall because Romney only carried it by just two percentage points in 2012. With Trump or Cruz as the nominee, it’s possible that Democrats could carry North Carolina in November, boosting Ross’ chances.

And that was written before the latest jobs meltdown. As you might imagine some NC Republicans are shrugging it off, with a “who cares about Springsteen” attitude. But now the stakes are considerably higher, as David Bracken and Paul A. Specht write in “Economic impact of HB2 mushrooms in the Triangle” in the News and Observer,

The economic impact of the state’s controversial House Bill 2 continued to mushroom Tuesday, as Deutsche Bank announced it was freezing plans to create 250 jobs in Cary and a top Wake County economic development official said that five companies since early last week have canceled or postponed efforts to bring jobs to the county.
“We’ve had some companies choose to suspend their site selection search in North Carolina and consequently in Wake County,” said Adrienne Cole, executive director of Wake County Economic Development. “Some have said they’re taking North Carolina off the list, others have said they’re postponing things to see what happens.”
The economic development projects included an IT company and a clean energy company and ranged in size from 75 jobs to one that could have brought 1,000 jobs to the Triangle, she said.
Cole said that, after Deutsche Bank’s decision, she’s also worried about economic development projects that the area has already secured. The German bank in September announced plans to add 250 jobs in Cary by the end of next year.
But it halted that expansion Tuesday, saying in a statement that HB2 “invalidated existing protections of the rights of gay, bisexual and transgender fellow citizens in some municipalities and prevents municipalities from adopting such protections in the future.”

The authors add that “Deutsche Bank is the second major corporation to halt expansion plans in North Carolina because of HB2. Last week, PayPal scrapped plans for a new Charlotte operations center that would have employed 400 people. Two other companies, Red Ventures and Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, have said they are re-evaluating expansion plans because of the law.” Further,

The legislation also has led some municipalities and states to ban nonessential employee travel to North Carolina. The Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau released a report Monday saying that Wake County had lost out on an estimated $732,000 in economic benefits after four groups canceled plans to hold events in the county.

North Carolina’s Republican Governor Pat McCrory has chosen to learn his lessons the hard way. As Craig Jarvis writes in the NC News and Observer,

Gov. Pat McCrory on Tuesday issued an executive order that he said was needed to clarify widespread misunderstanding about the new North Carolina law regulating protections for gay and transgender people.
The governor’s order didn’t change the most controversial provision of the law: requiring transgender people to use bathrooms of their birth gender. Gay rights advocates criticized McCrory for not doing enough, while Republican leaders supported him.

McCrory is also up for re-election this year, and his prospects were rated a “toss-up” by Crystal Ball’s Sabato, Kondik and Skelly — also before the latest jobs meltdown.
Progressive who savor the spectacle of Republican leader squirmage and such poorly conceived and clumsy walkbacks should stay tuned. This show is just getting started and it will soon be played out in other southern states.
What we are seeing in the pushback in the southern states is a great victory for all those who are opposed to mean-spirited, homophobic state laws — and a showcase for the power of the boycott as the most effective form of citizen action. It is more than possible that such boycotts could be used to repeal and prevent other reactionary state laws, including ALEC’s voter suppression measures and other laws that abuse civil and hiuman rights.
It just may be that NC swing voters will soon tire of the GOP’s Keystone Kops routine and, if NC Dems play this hand well, decide that Republicans, who frequently brag about their party’s “pro-business” policies, are clearly clueless about what it takes to attract — and keep — jobs. November 8 would be a good time to send that message.

At Huffpo Daniel Marans discusses a debate between pairs of Democratic candidates in the primaries in their respective states over whether or not to cut Social Security benefits.
Marans writes that the debate is erupting in several key senatorial primarties, including Kamala Harris vs. Loretta Sanchez in CA; Donna Edwards vs. Chris Van Hollen in MD; Katie McGinty vs. Joe Sestak in PA; and Alan Grayson vs. Patrick Murphy in FL. Harris, Edwards, Grayson and McGinty are all oposing Social Security cuts. Their opponents are leaving the door open to discussing the proposals suggested by the Bowles-Simpson Commission, which Marans reports include “major cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age and cutting the cost-of-living adjustment…”
If this debate seems a little backwards, you are thinking clearly. At a time when millions of elderly Americans who have worked hard for decades are retiring in poverty and economic hardship, Democrats should not cosider reducing these modest retirement benefits at all. And at a time when Democrats are losing the votes of millions of high-turnout senior citizens to Republicans, the Democratic Party should not risk being perceived as wobbly on Social Security benefits.
Rather, the debate should be about how much Social Security benefits should be increased and to what extent eligibility should be expanded. If Democrats truly want to win a stable majority, then the goal should be to make sure every swing voter understands that cuting Social Security benefits is off the table for Democrats, and Dems are the party that wants to improve retirement security, not flirt with undermining it.
Marans quotes some Democrats and progressives who get it:

“While some in Washington have voted to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, Kamala would oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and believes we need to strengthen these safety nets…Elizabeth Warren’s impassioned November 2013 speech embracing benefits expansion became a turning point that helped move the idea into the mainstream. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Social Security expansion in January. And both Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to increase benefits, not cut them.

Marans notes further that Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, argues that “putting a political price on past support for Bowles-Simpson “is not an ideological purity thing. This is about millions of Americans somehow getting by on benefits of $14, $15, $16,000 a year and elected officials thinking they can cut benefits.”
Marans adds that “A Pew study released on March 31 found that opposition to Social Security cuts is the only position shared by a majority of the supporters of all of the presidential candidates in both parties.”
Further, top economists agree that the least painful way to insure the solvency of Social Security is to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. As The National Comittee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare explains,

Incredibly, most people still don’t realize that workers who earn more than $110,100 don’t contribute on their full income and that simply removing that tax loophole for high earners would close the vast majority of Social Security’s modest long-term funding gap. Legislation introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than 9 out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. Making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with lower incomes should be a no-brainer and it is the solution Americans prefer rather than cutting already modest Social Security benefits.

Nearly all Republicans in congress want to cut Social Security benefits, instead of lifting the cap. When such a simple — and popular — alternative solution to addressing the program’s future funding exists, Democrats should speak with one voice on this issue, as the unflagging champions of increased retirement security for working Americans. Making this principle a central and prominent component of the Democratic Party’s message will win enough votes from American seniors to secure a stable majority.

Laura Vozella reports at The Washington Post that “Nearly a third of Virginia Republicans will vote for Hillary Clinton, pick a third-party candidate or sit out the election if Donald Trump is the GOP’s nominee for president,” according to a newly-released Christopher Newport University poll.
Republican state legislators and governors in several southern states have stepped in it big time, with the growing reaction to a rash of their gay-bashing legislation in GA, NC, MS, VA and TN. Following threats of an NFL and NCAA boycotts, Georgia’s Republican Govenor Nathan Deal vetoed a bill that would have allowed faith-based organizations to deny services to LGBT citizens and VA’s Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe also vetoed a bill passed by the GOP legislative majority that permitted businesses and individuals to “cite their religious beliefs as a reason for refusing services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.” Springsteen has already cancelled a Greensboro, NC concert because of the “newly-enacted Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, which prohibits transgender individuals from using the bathroom of their choosing.” UPDATE: Canadian singer Bryan Adams has cancelled his upcoming show in Biloxi, MS.
It’s one thing when a northeastern rocker boycotts your state. But TN Republicans ought to be a little worried when top country artist Emmylou Harris issues a statement saying “Those who love and make country music do so because at its best it speaks to the pain and suffering everyone shares in this life…Let’s not make that life harder still for some, with this mean spirited and unnecessary legislation” in response to a bill which “seeks to prohibit students in public institutions from using the bathroom that does not conform to their gender at birth” and another, which would let counselors refuse mental health services to clients based on their religious beliefs. Country music stars Chely Wright and Ty Herndon have also released statements condemning the legislation, as has TN-born Miley Cyrus.
“A new study out of the University of California at San Diego…found that the turnout gap between Republicans and Democrats in states with voter ID suppression laws jumped from 2.3 to 5.6 percentage points after those voter ID laws went into effect.” — from Truthdig’s “The GOP Is Now Bragging About Voter Suppression.”
WaPo’s Amber Phillips explains why “The Senate map is looking better and better for Democrats,” and provides an insightful look at key contests in 10 states.
At HuffPo Robert Reich writes, “The recent kerfluffle about Bernie Sanders purportedly not knowing how to bust up the big banks says far more about the threat Sanders poses to the Democratic establishment and its Wall Street wing than it does about the candidate himself…The biggest are far larger today than they were in 2008 when they were deemed “too big to fail.” Then, the five largest held around 30 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today they have 44 percent.”
In These Times posts an interesting interview with Ian Haney Lopez, author of Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class and Matt Morrison, Matt Morrison, deputy director of the AFL-CIO’s 3.2-million member community affiliate, Working America on the topic, “Understanding What Makes Donald Trump Voters Tick: Is It Just Racism? In Trump’s appeal, the Left seeks clues on winning back the white working-class.”
Wilson Andrews, Kitty Bennett and Alicia Parlapiano provide some nifty graphics that illustrate the “2016 Delegate Count and Primary Results” at The New York Times.
But, if the delegate hunt strikes you as unseemly, and you think presidential elections ought not be decided by about seven states, check out the National Popular Vote initiative, which is moving forward, regardless of what happens this year.

With all the talk lately about the U.S. Supreme Court and its past, current, and potentially future composition, we’re beginning to hear more about what Republicans might do if they retake the White House and still have an opening to fill. I wrote about one scary possibility at New York earlier this week:

At present, there’s a major boom among conservatives for Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
Today the Washington Post‘s James Hohmann offers a rundown on all the reasons Lee is enjoying this attention. For one thing, the Utah senator has long been considered Ted Cruz’s best friend in the upper chamber, so if Cruz is elected, it’s a bit of a no-brainer if Lee wants a robe. For another, Lee would probably have an easier time getting confirmed by his colleagues in the clubby Senate than some law professor or circuit-court judge, and might even avoid a Democratic filibuster (assuming Republicans haven’t already killed the SCOTUS filibuster via the “nuclear option”).
But one of the two most important reasons for the Lee boom is buried pretty far down in the story:

Lee is just 44. That means he could squeeze four or more decades out of a lifetime appointment.

Yep. If nominated next year for the Scalia seat, Lee would be the youngest nominee since Clarence Thomas, who has now been on the Court for nearly a quarter of a century, with many years of extremism probably still ahead of him. Before Thomas, you have to go all the way back to Bill Richardson’s favorite justice, Whizzer White, in 1962, to find a nominee as young as Lee would be. As you may have noticed, life expectancy has been going up for Americans in recent decades. For conservatives seeking a permanent grip on the Court and on constitutional law, someone Lee’s age is money.
But the second reason Lee would be significant is only hinted at by Hohmann in the praise lavished on the solon by the Heritage Foundation and longtime right-wing legal thinker Senator Jeff Sessions (the two most likely sources for SCOTUS advice for Donald Trump, as it happens). Lee’s not just any old “constitutional conservative”; he’s a leading exponent of what is called the Lochner school of constitutional theory, named after the early-twentieth-century decision that was the basis for SCOTUS invalidation of New Deal legislation until the threat of court-packing and a strategic flip-flop resolved what had become a major constitutional crisis.
Lee has, on occasion, suggested that child labor laws, Social Security, and Medicare are unconstitutional, because they breach the eternal limits on federal power sketched out by the Founders. Like most Lochnerians, he views the constitution and the courts as designed to keep democratic majorities from stepping on the God-given personal and property rights of individuals and corporations alike. So it’s no surprise he’s been a bitter critic of the deferential view towards Congress expressed by Chief Justice Roberts in the decision that saved Obamacare.
In effect, Mike Lee could become a more influential successor to Clarence Thomas — after overlapping with Thomas on the Court for a decade or two.

Now that would be scary.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is taking some heat for his statement that Hillary Clinton is “not qualified” to be president. Here’s what NYT columnist Paul Krugman said about it:

Mr. Sanders wasn’t careful at all, declaring that what he considers Mrs. Clinton’s past sins, including her support for trade agreements and her vote to authorize the Iraq war — for which she has apologized — make her totally unfit for office.
…This is really bad, on two levels. Holding people accountable for their past is O.K., but imposing a standard of purity, in which any compromise or misstep makes you the moral equivalent of the bad guys, isn’t. Abraham Lincoln didn’t meet that standard; neither did F.D.R. Nor, for that matter, has Bernie Sanders (think guns).
…The Sanders campaign has brought out a lot of idealism and energy that the progressive movement needs. It has also, however, brought out a streak of petulant self-righteousness among some supporters. Has it brought out that streak in the candidate, too?

At The Daily Beast Michael Tomasky wrote:

…Sanders’s blunt statement Wednesday night that Clinton “is not qualified” to be president ratchets up the arms race considerably.
…Now–Sanders apologists will scream that she started it, and even neutral observers, if there are any, may be confused. But there’s a big difference between saying “raises serious questions” and “I’ll leave it to the voters to decide,” and saying flat out that one’s primary opponent is “not qualified.”
…At the end of the process, Clinton will be ahead, and Sanders will have to endorse her. Not certain, of course, but likely. So the question is, how can he endorse her after saying flat out that she’s not qualified to be president?…won’t it ring awfully hollow? For her part, Clinton, looking toward a future mending of fences, brushed off Sanders’s remarks. It’s worth noting, too, that back in 2008, Clinton gave up the fight in early June right after the primaries ended and endorsed Obama. One has trouble picturing Sanders doing the same, if it comes to that, and what he said Wednesday night makes it even less likely.

For Democrats that’s a worrisome scenario. The Sanders campaign has so far done a lot of good in advanciing the issues of Wall St. reform, reducing income inequality and restricting unfair trade as Democratic priorities. It has also mobilized younger voters, who could help defeat Republicans in the fall.
Until recently, the Clinton-Sanders contest has provided a model of civility, in stark contrast to the Republicans’ increasingly ridiculous mud-slinging. The value of being perceived as the party for grown-ups at a time when Republicans are acting like unusually-immature jr. high schoolers should not be underestimated. There are swing voters out there who are looking for evidence of maturity and wisdom. Let’s not make them stay home on election day.
Democrats have not had a better opportunity for a game-changing, landslide election in decades. To risk blowing it now with escalating intemperance would feed the meme that both parties are pretty much the same, even though the policy priorities are vastly different.
To be fair, the Clinton campaign has flirted with unduly harsh personal criticism of Sanders on occasion, but it has wisely stopped short of saying outright that Sanders is “unqualified” to serve as president. Going forward, the Sanders campaign should exercize similar restraint, and get back on track with the high road tone that has served it so well.
It is understandable that the Democratic presidential primaries would heat up at this juncture. But the Democratic party has two excellent presidential candidates, either one of whom has the record, policies and debate skills to beat Trump, Cruz or Kasich decisively. Let’s keep it that way.

I’m jaded enough to roll with all sorts of lame claims in the coverage of presidential politics, but one today drove me to an immediate rebuttal at New York:

Time magazine has truly jumped the shark in publishing an interview with Ted Cruz in which he is encouraged without contradiction to call himself an “economic populist.” If Cruz is an “economic populist,” then the term has truly lost all meaning beyond the pixie dust of rhetorical enchantment.
We are supposed to believe Cruz is a populist because he opposes a few relatively small but symbolically rich corporate-subsidy programs like the Export-Import Bank and regulatory thumbs-on-the-scale for the use of ethanol — both objects of ridicule among libertarians for decades. In the Time interview, he leaps effortlessly from the argument that sometimes government helps corporations to the idea that government should not help anybody.

[B]oth parties, career politicians in both parties get in bed with the lobbyist and special interest. And the fix is in. Where Washington’s policies benefit big business, benefit the rich and the powerful at the expense of the working men and women.
Now the point that I often make, and just a couple of days ago in Wisconsin I was visiting with a young woman who said she was a Bernie Sanders supporter. And I mentioned to her that I agreed with Bernie on the problem.
But I said if you think the problem is Washington is corrupt, why would you want Washington to have more power? I think the answer to that problem is for Washington to have less power, for government to have less power over our lives.

Is there any K Street or Wall Street lobbyist who would not instantly trade whatever preferments they’ve been able to wring from Washington in exchange for a radically smaller government that lets corporations do whatever they want? I don’t think so.
Yet it’s hard to find a politician more inclined to get government off the backs of the very rich and the very powerful. My colleague Jonathan Chait summed it up nicely this very day in discussing Cruz’s Goldwater-ish extremism:

In addition to the de rigueur ginormous tax cut for rich people, Cruz proposes a massive shift of the tax burden away from income taxes to sales taxes. So, not only would Cruz’s plan give nearly half of its benefit to the highest-earning one percent of taxpayers (who would save, on average, nearly half a million dollars a year in taxes per household), but it would actually raise taxes on the lowest-earning fifth …
He advocates for … deregulation of Wall Street, and would eliminate the Clean Power Plan and take away health insurance from some 20 million people who’ve gained it through Obamacare. He has defined himself as more militant and uncompromising than any other Republican in Congress, and many of his fellow Republican officeholders have depicted him as a madman.

Cruz would have you believe his unsavory reputation among Beltway Republicans flows from his identification with the working class as opposed to the special interests. As a matter of fact, he’s considered a madman (or a charlatan) for insisting Republicans ought to shut down the federal government rather than compromise or abandon their anti-working-class policies (and their reactionary social policies as well).
Aside from the policies Chait mentions, Cruz also favors (in contrast to Donald Trump) that populist perennial, “entitlement reform,” including the kind of Social Security benefit cuts and retirement-age delays promoted by George W. Bush back in 2005.
And for dessert, in a position that would certainly make William Jennings Bryan roll in his grave, Cruz is on record favoring tight money policies to combat the phantom menace of inflation, along with a commission to consider a return to the gold standard.
One might argue the description of Cruz as an “economic populist” is a small journalistic excess justified by the heat of the GOP nominating contest. But in a general-election matchup between Cruz and Hillary Clinton, we could find ourselves hearing misleading contrasts of Cruz as a “populist” to Hillary Clinton, the “Establishment” pol. Let’s head that one off at a distance, people. Whatever you think of her set side by side with Bernie Sanders, compared to Cruz she’s a wild leveler and class-warfare zealot, favoring minimum-wage increases, more progressive taxes, large new mandates on businesses, continuation and expansion of Obamacare, action on global climate change, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and (of course) opposition to the many reactionary policies Ted Cruz holds dear.

All Democrats should howl with rage at such misappropriations of the economic populist heritage. They might disagree internally as to who is more faithful to that legacy and how much that matters, but if Ted Cruz is part of that club, it’s time to pick a new name.

Crystal Ball wizards Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley see several Senate and Governor’s races “Move Toward Democrats.” The authors note, “the Crystal Ball is changing six Senate race ratings, all in a Democratic direction.” As for the governorships, “A weak Republican presidential nominee could endanger GOP incumbents running for reelection in Indiana and North Carolina, prompting us to also shift the ratings for those contests in the Democrats’ direction.” Read the article for more details.
For those interested in the races in the state legislatures of America, keep an eye on Tennessee, where an interesting down-ballot strategy is taking shape — 23 Democratic women are running for seats in the state senate and house, supported by Women for Tennessee’s Future. “It’s the latest strategy unveiled by Democratic activists, and it could have some legs,” writes Dave Boucher in The Tennessean. “Organizers of the effort — including longtime Tennessee Democratic operative Krissa Barclay and Lisa Quigley, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville — believe a combination of Hillary Clinton atop the Democratic ticket and Trump atop the Republican ticket only helps strong Democratic women.”
Nate Cohn argues that “If Cruz Keeps This Pace, Trump Won’t Get a Majority of Delegates.”
Jonathan Chait discusses “The Pragmatic Tradition of African-American Voters” to help explain why Sen. Sanders lags with this constiuency well behind former Secretary of State Clinton — despite Sanders’ participation in civil disobedience protests against racial segregation as early as 1963.
Here’s a simply-explained summary of the new Treasury Department rules curbing corporate “inversions” that cut billions from their taxes and force American workers and small businesses to pick up a larger share of the tab for needed benefits and services. Republicans, particularly those who have benefited from Pfizer’s support, are quite bent out of shape about it. But the measures give Democrats a tangible policy to support, while Repubican candidates argue that large corporations bailing out of their obligations to the U.S. is a good thing.
WaPo’s Sari Horwitz provides a disturbing profile of “The conservative gladiator from Kansas behind restrictive voting laws.”
Democratic rising stars, Sens. Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren explain at HuffPo why the Obama Administration’s “new guidelines that establish a professional and legal obligation for retirement advisors to provide advice that puts their clients’ interests first.” But they also offer a critique of the quality of retirement for middle class Americans that could resonate with senior voters: “Americans are retiring later in their lives than ever before. Hardworking families struggling to make ends meet have a difficult enough time saving money for retirement. Over 30 percent of Americans don’t have any retirement savings…More than half of lower income Americans don’t believe a comfortable retirement is attainable…Americans who work hard and play by the rules deserve to be able to retire comfortably with the dignity and security they have worked so hard for.”
Those who like graphic explanations of political trends should check out “What’s Driving Trump and Clinton Voters to the Polls” by Jon Huang and Karen Yourish at The New York Times.
Often remembered for his hippie-bashing “Okie from Muskogee,” the late Merle Haggard matured into a gernuine working-class bard, who suported some progressive causes. “Haggard’s truest allegiance was to the working class and anyone struggling, hard on their luck,” writes Kim Ruehl at CNN.com. “He didn’t want us to feel bad for anyone; he wanted us to recognize their humanity.” AP’s Kristin M. Hall reports, “More recently, he was a backer of prominent Democrats. In 2007 he unveiled a song to promote Hillary Clinton and two years later he penned “Hopes Are High” to commemorate Obama’s inauguration. In “America First,” he even opposed the Iraq War, singing “Let’s get out of Iraq, and get back on track.”

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.