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.

Ed Kilgore’s “Not Much Evidence Donald Trump Can Win the Presidency on the Shoulders of the White Working Class” at New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer provides some awfully bad news for the Trump campaign. Among Kilgore’s onbservations: “Andrew Levison has examined the relative performance of all candidates from both parties in three recent midwestern open primaries, and shown that Trump’s share of the total white working-class vote ranged from 26 percent in Illinois to 30 percent in Ohio (where he actually lost the primary to John Kasich).”
At Esquire Charles Pierce explains how “Your Taxes Are Being Spent on Making It Harder for Americans to Vote” through “the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an institution created with good intentions in the aftermath of the Great Florida Heist in 2000. One of the things the commission is tasked with is overseeing the national voter registration form. It is supposed to be staffed by two members from each party. Now, however, to the surprise of approximately nobody, there are two Republicans and one Democrat because a vacancy has gone unfilled.”
From Daniel Dale’s “New ID laws, long lines raise allegations of U.S. voting discrimination” at The Toronot Star: “Canada had its own voter ID controversy when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives tightened the law in 2014. But Canada still allows more than three dozen kinds of identifying documents, including bank cards, library cards, even blood-donor cards….In Wisconsin, only a few kinds of identification are now accepted: a licence, a passport, a military card, a college student card, or the free non-driver ID. And some would-be voters still have no idea they need these kinds of ID at all. Wisconsin’s Republican government, led by Gov. Scott Walker, has failed to fund the public education campaign that was promised under the new law.”
With less than 9 months to go in President Obama’s second term, Nobel laureate/NYT columnist Paul Krugman takes a look at his presidency and offers a well-documented set of conclusions about the Administration’s accomplishmens regarding the economy, financial reform and health care that will set Republican teeth to grinding, especialy Krugman’s summation that: “All in all, it’s quite a record. Assuming Democrats hold the presidency, Mr. Obama will emerge as a hugely consequential president — more than Reagan.”
NYT columnist Frank Bruni addresses “The Republicans’ Gay Freakout” and illuminates another demographic wedge in the GOP rank and file: “While the marriage of the party’s evangelical and business wings has never been a cuddly one, it’s especially frosty now, their incompatible desires evident in the significant number of prominent corporations that have denounced the North Carolina law and that successfully pressed the Republican governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, to veto recent legislation that would have permitted the denial of services to L.G.B.T. people by Georgians citing religious convictions… Corporations want to attract and retain the most talented workers, and that’s more difficult in states with discriminatory laws. They want to reach the widest base of customers and sow loyalty among young consumers in particular, and the best strategy for that is an L.G.B.T.-friendly one, given that eight in 10 Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 support non-discrimination laws, according to a 2015 Public Religion Research Institute survey.”
David M. Herszenhorn’s NYT article, “Largely Forgotten and Hugely Influential: The Race for Marco Rubio’s Senate Seat” provides a reminder of the importance of a U.S. Senate race in a key state, and this one is full of drama.
At The Upshot Lynn Vavreck writes, “The increasing alignment between party and racial attitudes goes back to the early 1990s. The Pew Values Survey asks people whether they agree that “we should make every effort to improve the position of minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment.”…Over time, Americans’ party identification has become more closely aligned with answers to this question and others like it. Pew reports that, “since 1987, the gap on this question between the two parties has doubled — from 18 points to 40 points.” Democrats are now much more supportive (52 percent) of efforts to improve racial equality than they were a few decades ago, while the views of Republicans have been largely unchanged (12 percent agree)…But recent work by Stanford University’s Shanto Iyengar and his co-authors shows something else has been brewing in the electorate: a growing hostility toward members of the opposite party…Democrats and Republicans like each other a lot less now than they did 60 years ago in part because they have sorted into parties based on attitudes on race, religion and ethnicity.”
Seung Min Kim and Burgess Everett have an update on the Merrick Garland confirmation battle at Politico, which notes “On Friday, one of the three GOP senators who had said Garland deserves a confirmation hearing — Jerry Moran of Kansas — backtracked after a firestorm of criticism from the right. The other two are the most moderate Republicans in the chamber: Maine’s Susan Collins and Illinois’ Mark Kirk, who faces the longest odds of getting reelected this year of any senator in the country. Despite the lack of momentum for the nomination, the Democrats’ “Do Your Job” campaign provides a handy cudgel for publiciizing the obstructionist policy of Republican senators.
With about 7 months left in campaign 2016, the front-runner for the quadrennial ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ award has to be Gov. John Kasich for this observation.

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.

Everyone loves a good “contested convention” fantasy flowing from the decent odds that no one candidate will arrive at the Republican National Convention in July with a majority of bound delegates. But it’s important to understand how convention rules can make a wide-open convention impossible, and how the contending forces in the party have the power to make those rules stick. I wrote about this issue and the historical context extensively at New York this week:

As conventions became more tightly controlled and their managers worried about things like ensuring that the balloting and acceptance speeches occurred before East Coast television viewers were asleep, nonserious candidacies were sacrificed to efficiency. Among Republicans, the tradition developed that no one’s name could be placed in nomination without support from at least three delegations; that cut off the pure favorite-son candidacies. Beyond that, the status of conventions as ratifying rather than nominating events exerted its own pressure on “losers” who typically succumbed to the pressure to unite behind the nominee and grin for the cameras.
That was before the Ron Paul Revolution appeared on the scene. In 2012, the Paulites shrewdly focused on winning fights for delegates that occurred after primaries and caucuses in hopes of making their eccentric candidate and his eccentric causes a big nuisance at Mitt Romney’s convention. And so the Romney campaign and its many allies reacted — some would say overreacted — by using its muscle on the convention Rules Committee (meeting just prior to Tampa to draft procedures for the conclave) to change the presence-in-three-delegations threshold for having one’s name placed in nomination to this one:

Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

This Rule 40(b), moreover, was interpreted to mean that no candidate who did not meet the threshold could have votes for the nomination recorded in her/his name.
Rule 40(b) succeeded in keeping the Paulites under wraps in Tampa, but as is generally the case, it remained in effect as a “temporary” rule for the next convention, subject to possible revision by a new Rules Committee meeting just prior to the 2016 gathering, and by the convention itself, which controls its own rules. In fact, its drafters may have intended to keep the rule in place to head off some annoying convention challenge to President Romney’s renomination.
Back in the real world, Rule 40(b) may have been in the back of some minds early in the 2016 cycle as a way to keep the convention from being rhetorically kidnapped by noisy supporters of Rand Paul, or of the novelty “birther” candidate Donald Trump.
Now, obviously, the shoe is on the other foot, and there is a growing possibility that the two strongest candidates for the GOP nomination, Trump and Ted Cruz, could join their considerable forces to insist on maintenance of Rule 40(b) or something much like it to prevent their common Republican Establishment enemies from exploiting a multi-ballot convention to place someone else at the top of the ticket.
Trump is currently the only candidate who is beyond the eight-state-majority threshold for competing for the nomination under the strict terms of Rule 40(b). But Team Cruz is confident enough that its candidate will also satisfy the rule that he’s the one out there arguing that Rule 40(b) means votes for John Kasich are an entire waste because they won’t be counted in Cleveland. And with both Trump and Cruz repeatedly claiming that the nomination of a dark horse who hasn’t competed during the primaries would be an insult to the GOP rank and file, maintaining Rule 40(b) is the obvious strategy to close off that possibility. A good indicator of the new situation is the evolving position of Virginia party activist and veteran Rules Committee member Morton Blackwell, a loud dissenter against Rule 40(b) before and after the 2012 convention, who now, as a Cruz supporter, is arguing that changing the rule “would be widely and correctly viewed as [an] outrageous power grab.”
But can the Republican Establishment stack the Rules Committee with party insiders determined to overturn Rule 40(b) and keep the party’s options wide open going into Cleveland? Not really. That committee is composed of two members elected by each state delegation. No likely combination of Kasich and Rubio delegates and “false-flag” delegates bound to Trump or Cruz but free to vote against their interests on procedural issues is likely to make up a majority of the Rules Committee, or of the convention. Indeed, most of the anecdotal evidence about “delegate-stealing” in the murky process of naming actual bodies to fill pledged seats at the convention shows Team Cruz, not some anti-Trump/anti-Cruz cabal, gaining ground. If Trump and Cruz stick together on this one point no matter how many insults they are exchanging as rivals, they almost certainly can shut the door on any truly “open” convention and force Republicans who intensely dislike both of them to choose their poison.
That would leave Kasich with his fistful of general-election polls and the proliferating list of fantasy “unity” candidates on the outside in Cleveland, playing to the cameras but having no real influence over the proceedings. And you can make the case that this is precisely what the Republican “base” wants and has brought to fruition through the nominating process. It would, of course, be highly ironic if the Republican Establishment’s Rule 40(b) became the instrument for two candidates generally hated by said Establishment to impose a duopoly on the party. But there’s no President Romney around to put a stop to it.

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?”

Riveting as the presidential election has been so far this cycle, it’s important for Democrats to keep an eye on what’s happening down- ballot. Here are some thoughts on the connection between the two that I discussed at New York:

It is not lost on Democrats watching the whole Republican presidential nominating contest veer crazily into a demolition derby that the GOP is almost certainly going to nominate one of their weakest candidates according to general-election polling, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. And both of these gents are nicely fitted in the dead man’s clothes of a landslide loser in November, with Trump alienating millions of normally reliable Republican voters and Cruz channeling the ideological excesses of Barry Goldwater.
But aside from giving Democrats a better-than-average chance of holding on to the White House, would Trump or Cruz at the top of the ticket have serious consequences down-ballot? Most of the early speculation on this topic has focused on the battle for control of the Senate, where the GOP’s four-seat margin was already in some question thanks to a landscape where too many vulnerable Republican senators (e.g., Johnson, Kirk, Ayotte, Toomey, Portman) are running for reelection in blue states. But now the wild rhetoric of the GOP presidential primaries and Trump’s terrible general-election numbers are making Democrats think about the previously unimaginable prospect of winning the 30 net seats necessary to take back control of the U.S. House for the first time in six years.
The Washington Post‘s Paul Kane has a good roundup today of expert opinions on this possibility. One independent observer, Nathan Gonzales, downplays its likelihood, noting that House Democratic plans focusing on 2020 or even 2022 (after the next decennial redistricting) may have led the party to underrecruit viable candidates for this cycle. The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman documents the tough math for Democrats but notes it is still early:

Right now, we rate only 31 Republican seats as at risk, meaning Democrats would need to win an impossibly high 97 percent of them – and hold all their own seats – to take back control. But filing deadlines still haven’t passed in a majority of districts, and it’s worth watching how many more Democratic recruits Trump and Cruz will entice in the coming months.

Wasserman also notes two important crosscutting data points: On the one hand, past presidential landslides have not necessarily produced correspondingly large House turnover, but on the other, the widespread ticket-splitting that made these variable results possible has been declining steadily in recent years. So that leads to the big imponderable question: If, say, Donald Trump is getting waxed by 20 points in the presidential race, will normally Republican voters split tickets, vote for Democrats, or skip voting altogether? It’s really difficult to know at this point.
It is reasonably clear that the rise of straight-ticket voting owes a lot to the growing ideological consistency of the two major parties, with Republicans in particular becoming a monolithic conservative coalition. By contrast, back in 1972, Democrats in (for example) Georgia could reject liberal presidential nominee George McGovern and then (with the help of a convenient sub-presidential straight-ticket ballot line) vote for a consistently moderate-and-conservative set of Democratic candidates down-ballot. And that’s exactly what they did. Nowadays the gradual extinction of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats both among candidates and voters means fewer people inherently inclined to split tickets. But arguably both Trump and Cruz, in somewhat different ways, stray far enough from the ideological consensus among Republicans that down-ballot candidates (perhaps supported by signals from party leaders) have no compunctions about distinguishing themselves from their party’s presidential candidate, much as southern Democrats did in the heyday of ticket-splitting. This could be particularly true if disunity is apparent at the very top of the party hierarchy, as it seems to be now that the three remaining presidential candidates are abandoning loyalty pledges to support the ultimate nominee.
Given the unusually large GOP majority in the House and thus that party’s exposure in marginal districts, and the pro-Democratic turnout patterns typical in recent presidential elections, some Democratic House gains are almost certain, even if the Republican presidential candidate is not an albatross. Democratic gains short of a majority could paradoxically increase the power of the House Freedom Caucus by reducing Speaker Paul Ryan’s room for maneuvering without Democratic votes. But it’s worth keeping an eye on the number of Republican seats that look vulnerable after the conventions. It was widely believed during the last decade that success in redistricting gave Republicans a lock on the House until 2012. The lock was picked in 2006 and a whole new order was (very temporarily) created by Democratic wins in that year and in 2008. It remains to be seen if a scary presidential nominee can do as much damage to the GOP as did the Iraq War and the financial crisis.

It’s a question we had no way of anticipating as central to Campaign ’16.

From E. J.Dionne, Jr.’s column, “Arizona’s voting outrage is a warning to the nation” at The Washington Post:

It’s bad enough that an outrage was perpetrated last week against the voters of Maricopa County, Ariz. It would be far worse if we ignore the warning that the disenfranchisement of thousands of its citizens offers our nation. In November, one of the most contentious campaigns in our history could end in a catastrophe for our democracy.
…The facts of what happened in Arizona’s presidential primary are gradually penetrating the nation’s consciousness. In a move rationalized as an attempt to save money, officials of Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, cut the number of polling places by 70 percent, from 200 in the last presidential election to 60 this time around…Maricopa includes Phoenix, the state’s largest city, which happens to have a non-white majority and is a Democratic island in an otherwise Republican county…As the Arizona Republic reported, the county’s move left one polling place for every 21,000 voters — compared with one polling place for every 2,500 voters in the rest of the state……There were fewer voting locations in “parts of the county with higher minority populations.”
…Many people had to wait hours to cast a ballot, and some polling stations had to stay open long after the scheduled 7 p.m. closing time to accommodate those who had been waiting — and waiting. The Republic told the story of Aracely Calderon, a 56-year-old immigrant from Guatemala who waited five hours to cast her ballot. There were many voters like her.

If all this summons up a fading memory, try Florida in 2000. In adition to the hanging chads, the “Brooks Brothers riot” and other Repubican electoral atrocities, similar crimes against democracy were very much a part of that notorious election year in the ‘Sunshine State’ under the rule of Gov. Jeb Bush, to his eternal shame.
Dionne quotes Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, noting that “Republicans have “moved with strategic ferocity” to pass a variety of laws around the country to make it harder for people to cast ballots. The Brennan Center reports that 16 states “will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election.”
Looking forward, Dionne warns,

Imagine voting debacles like Arizona’s happening all across the country. Consider what the news reports would be like on the night of Nov. 8, 2016. Are we not divided enough already? Can we risk holding an election whose outcome would be rendered illegitimate in the eyes of a very large number of Americans who might be robbed of their franchise?

“This is not idle fantasy,” Dionne concludes. “Arizona has shown us what could happen. We have seven months to prevent what really could be an electoral cataclysm.”
The progressive media has done a decent job in reporting on the disgrace in Arizona, and the MSM has begun to follow up on the story. In this already embarrassing year for the GOP, the leading conservative columnists have so far continued their appalling silence about the Republicans’ racially-driven voter suppression. In so doing, they betray both genuine conservatism and the values of democracy.

Most observers of political attack ads will tell you that it’s easy to overdo it. Some recent examples could include Alan Grayson’s campaign ad referring to his opponent for a Senate seat as “Taliban Dan” or Kentucky Democrat Jack Conway’s senate campaign “Aqua Buddha” ad knocking Republican candidate Rand Paul. Both of these ads backfired and actualy helped the targeted Republican.
In 2016 Democratic ad makers have a unique problem with respect to the 2016 presidential campaign, an overflowing embarrassment of riches, owing to Trump’s never-ending stream of gaffes, bullying comments and tasteles insults. There is so much material that the challenge for attack ads is what to leave out.
At The New Republic Laura Reston’s “Can Democratic Attack Ads Tear Down Donald Trump?: Republican groups’ attacks haven’t done the trick. But one big-money Democratic super PAC believes it has the formula” previews the approach of one anti-Trump group:

Republican groups in the #NeverTrump camp have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the real estate mogul in the last two months–mafia connections, failed business ventures, flagrant misogyny, racism, you name it. But Trump has continued to rack up delegates and now looks likely to secure the GOP nomination before the convention in July. This has generated some alarm in Democratic quarters: What if Donald Trump is this resilient in the general election?
You’ll find no such pessimism around the Washington, D.C., headquarters of Priorities USA Action. The wealthiest Democratic super PAC bent on taking down Trump in the general election is the same one that successfully portrayed Mitt Romney as a heartless corporate titan in 2012…Since last summer, Priorities USA’s small team has been planning a frontal assault on the next Republican nominee. The strategists at Priorities are now sketching out a plan to boost the Democrats’ probable nominee, Hillary Clinton, assembling dossiers on both Trump and Ted Cruz, and getting a head start on reserving prime television time in crucial battleground states. The super PAC announced Tuesday that it had begun preparing a $70 million advertising blitz slated to begin after the July conventions in battleground states like Florida and Ohio.
..The group has been scripting and testing ads since last year. But what do they think is going to work against Trump when every Republican attack has failed? “While we don’t forecast our strategy specifically,” says Priorities spokesman Justin Barasky, “it’s likely that we will explore Donald Trump’s temperament, character, and selfish legacy of enriching himself at the expense of others.”

“We’ll have a focused strategy,” says Guy Cecil, chief strategist at Priorities, “not just waiting until three weeks before the election and simply throwing everything we have at Trump, which is what the Republicans did.” In adition to the cornucopia of videos casting Trump in an extremely unfavorable light, Reston adds,

Whether or not Priorities comes up with the magic bullet against Trump, it will have advantages the Republican groups never had: the time and resources to adjust its strategies, toss out what doesn’t stick, and try new tacks. That was what the Republican establishment lacked in this primary cycle: By the time groups like Our Principles realized their attacks weren’t hitting home with Republican primary voters, Trump had already racked up a nearly insurmountable delegate lead…Trump could, of course, still prove to be uniquely, almost magically, immune to attacks in the general election. But he’ll have to fend off the kind of sustained barrage that he hasn’t faced in the Republican primaries–and one that will be aimed, this time, at voters who are already skeptical of him.

There may be a “too much of a good thing” dynamic at play here. Making fun of Trump is awfully easy, and you have to wonder if Trump-bashing could get as old as Trump himself by the time November rolls around.
Then there is the concern that Trump will look so bad by election time, that many will feel his defeat is in the bag and not bother to vote. Dems have to be more positive than negative going into the final weeks of the election; they have to give voters something to vote for, not just against, and that should be well-reflected in the pro-Democratic ad campaign. Attack ads work better, when the candidate of the attacking campaign is presented in a positive light.
As the Democratic front-runner, and despite her impressive delegate tally thus far, Hillary Clinton still has high negatives that Democratic ads must help reverse. If Sanders is nominated there will be a relentless tsunami of red-baiting ads. Countering GOP attack ads will be a challenge for Democratic ad-makers, regardless of all of the damaging video clips showing Trump as a dangerous, mean-spirited blowhard.

Bernie Sanders experienced a ressurrection of sorts over Easter weekend, winning three Democratic presidential contests, in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington — all by impressively large margins, 82, 71 and 73 percent, respectively and equally impressive turnouts, reports Amy Chozick in The New York Times.
But Harry Enten explains at FiveThirtyEight that “Bernie Sanders Continues To Dominate Caucuses, But He’s About To Run Out Of Them.”
At The Nation D. D. Guttenplan’s “Keep On Running, Bernie!: An active Sanders campaign through June is good for the party and for democracy” observes “Turnout remains the Democrats’ Achilles’ heel: In Ohio, where Trump came in second, he still pulled more votes than either Democrat. Clinton herself seems to get this, declining to endorse the calls for Sanders to drop out. Any other course would leave Trump in sole possession of the media for the next four months…Winning the nomination would be nice, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient to bring about that goal. Building a durable nationwide network of mobilized, active supporters prepared to keep fighting for universal healthcare, a living wage, and an end to Wall Street welfare and America’s endless wars–including the War on Drugs–and to occupy the Democratic Party in numbers great enough to take it back from its corporate funders is absolutely crucial.”
Julian Zelizer’s “Is Sanders doing Clinton a favor?” at CNN Politics adds, “..In the long run, Sanders may turn out to have been one of the best things to have happened to Clinton’s campaign…Assuming that she does win the nomination, Clinton will emerge as a much stronger candidate and her campaign operation will be in a better position for the fall, thanks to Sanders’ insurgency. Unlike divisive primaries that hurt a political party — such as Sen. Ted Kennedy’s challenge to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 or, most likely, the internecine battle that is ravaging the GOP this year — the Democrats will benefit as a result of the past few months.”
But Joan Walsh argues, also at The Nation, that Sanders can’t win without broadening his base of support beyond white working-class voters.
In “How the G.O.P. Elite Lost Its Voters to Donald Trump,” Nicholas Confessore breaks it down nicely: “While Republicans debated rhetorical approaches, Mr. Trump took a radically different tack. Announcing his campaign a few months later, he spun a tale of unfair trade deals hashed out by lobbyists, backscratchers and incompetent presidents who were stealing jobs from Americans. He would stop the flow of jobs over the border with Mexico, Mr. Trump promised, and build a wall to stop the flow of people…That message has resonated with lower-income voters, and helped drive Mr. Trump’s string of successes. In Mississippi and Michigan, both of which Mr. Trump won, six in 10 Republican primary voters said that free trade cost the country more jobs that it produced, exit polls showed.”
Again at The Times, Amy Chozick and Trip Gabriel see Trump’s wife-bashing as a big plus for Democrats, and note “Mr. Trump has shown a particular weakness among female voters, who favored Mrs. Clinton 55 percent to 35 percent in a New York Times/CBS News poll released this week, twice the gender gap of the 2012 presidential election, when President Obama defeated Mitt Romney. And 31 percent of Republican women said they would be upset if Mr. Trump were the party’s nominee, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.”
At HuffPo Pollster Janie Valencia and Ariel Edwards-Levy have some data on the lack of women’s support of Trump: “TRUMP HAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH WOMEN – Carrie Dann: “This month, about half (47 percent) of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump. (About 40 percent of male GOP primary voters said the same.) Compare that to their relative willingness to accept Trump’s rivals. Only about three in ten female Republican voters say they can’t imagine backing Ted Cruz (32 percent) and John Kasich (27 percent)….When it comes to the general electorate, Trump has an even more pronounced problem with female voters.Trump’s favorability with women overall is a dismal 21 percent positive/ 70 (!) percent negative. With men, it’s 28 percent positive/ 59 percent negative. And while women traditionally vote for Democratic candidates in larger numbers than men, data shows that a Trump nomination would exacerbate the issue for Republicans.”
WaPo’s Amber Phillips addresses a question that is popping up with increasing frequency: “Do House Democrats have a shot at the majority this year?” Phillips says “Democrats would need to sweep most or all of the 27 Republican-held seats that are currently regarded as competitive and then win even more districts to get the magic number 30 needed for a majority. (The current breakdown is 246 to 188, meaning Democrats need to turn 30 GOP seats blue.)…Republicans are defending some 26 districts that voted for President Obama in the last presidential election. Democrats have just five incumbents trying to win reelection in districts that voted for Mitt Romney.”