“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.

There have been many valuable discussions here at TDS and elsewhere about the significance of the opening on the U.S. Supreme Court after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. But there’s one aspect of the impending fight over Scalia’s successor that needs to be emphasized: the timing could make the shape of SCOTUS a big, mainstream presidential campaign issue for the first time ever. I wrote about this possibility for New York:

SCOTUS appointments have always been a big deal to liberal and conservative activists, particularly those focused on issues where constitutional law has had an important impact, such as abortion, civil liberties, federalism, and the regulation of businesses. That’s especially true with respect to the Court that Scalia’s death unsettled, where four consistently liberal justices were balanced by three-to-five conservatives, depending on where Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy were on any given case. A recent string of 5-4 splits has heightened the atmosphere of uncertainty, with decisions pending on affirmative action, climate-change regulations, the president’s ability to control immigration prosecutions, and a new wave of state abortion restrictions. With the Court now requiring 5-3 margins to overturn lower-court decisions, and three other justices (two liberals and the conservative/swing Justice Kennedy) over the age of 75, the current presidential-election cycle is rapidly becoming one of the most portentous ever in terms of the future shape of constitutional law.
The balance of the court is especially critical to conservatives stricken by Scalia’s death and fearful that their hopes of a truly and systematically conservative Court are in danger of slipping away. But it’s important to understand the other factor that ratchets up conservative anxiety over Court appointments to a high-pitch chattering whine: a legacy of betrayal by Republican-appointed justices. The best way to illustrate it is this: In 1992, the last time the Court had an opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion nationally, all five justices who voted to save Roe (O’Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, and Blackmun) had been appointed by Republican presidents.

This is largely why Ted Cruz is already out there arguing that the entire presidential campaign should be a “referendum” on SCOTUS. But there are other factors that could make Court appointments go viral:

The frequency and intensity of talk about the Supreme Court being the ultimate prize in Campaign 2016 will help it to spill over from the usual backstairs talk of activists into the broader public arena. Four other factors should virtually guarantee it: (1) President Obama’s decision to move ahead with an appointment, which he will then use to dramatize Republican obstruction, as the Senate refuses to hold hearings or a confirmation vote; (2) the likelihood that attitudes towards the Court and the Senate’s confirmation powers will become issues in close Senate races in presidential battleground states like Pennsylvania and Florida; (3) the paralysis of the Court in key cases where, absent Scalia or a successor, SCOTUS will split 4-4; and (4) the prevailing conventional wisdom that the 2016 contest will be a “base mobilization” rather than a “swing-voter persuasion” election, making highly emotional issues like abortion, guns, money-in-politics, and climate change much more prominent.

The issue is not going to go away any time soon, however:

It is not clear, however, that the election will resolve the Court deadlock. No matter who controls the Senate next year, the minority party will have the power to stop Supreme Court confirmations via the filibuster (unless the majority party extends to SCOTUS the “nuclear option” Harry Reid utilized in 2011 to end filibusters over lower-court and executive-branch confirmations, a fateful step that could, of course, backfire when shoes are on different feet). A campaign year of escalating and mutually reinforcing promises to hang very tough on the Court could all but eliminate the possibility of compromise.
So get used to the new reality: Fights over SCOTUS probably aren’t just for activists any more. Scalia’s replacement, if and when confirmed, could represent the definitive triumph of one vision of the Constitution over another.

And it’s likely we’ll all know it.

It would be hard to overstate the importance of who will be the next justice in the evenly-divided U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama’s nominee could have a profound impact on both the politics of 2016 and the shape of social and economic progress well into the future.
In his post, “The Simply Breathtaking Consequences Of Justice Scalia’s Death” at ThinkProgress, Ian Milhiser notes that the Supreme Court’s docket includes major cases addressing immigration, abortion, birth control, unions, redistricting, affirmative action and the environment. That’s just the short run. In the-too-distant future, the Court will render decisions that could reverse the Citizens United decision, support gun control and strengthen consumer protection, to name a few possibilities.
At this writing it seems highly unlikely that the President’s nominee will be confirmed by the present U.S. Senate. As SCOTUSBlog publisher Tom Goldstein recently put it,

The bottom line is that President Obama’s nominee is not getting confirmed before the election. Maybe there will be a permanent filibuster. Maybe Republicans will nominally allow the filibuster to be “broken,” then proceed to reject the nominee on the merits. (That course is suggested by the announcement by Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that he would await a nomination before deciding whether to hold hearings.) Maybe a couple of Republicans who have specific concerns in purple states will even vote for the nominee. But the entire process will be crafted to ensure that the nominee is not confirmed.

Goldstein is likely correct. But there remains a possibility, that once the President submits his nominee, purple state Republican senators will have second thoughts about serving as collateral damage in a Democratic landslide resulting from Trump being nominated.
Up till now, Republicans have gotten a fairly easy ride on their policy of knee-jerk obstruction of all things Obama and Democratic. The coming SCOTUS battle will up the stakes considerably, perhaps to the point where even low-information voters get it that GOP really does stand for “Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis.” Not a brand that offers much hope for the future.
Further, there are some cracks in the GOP’s obstructionist wall. As Emily Atkin notes at ThinkProgress:

[Ron} Johnson is the latest Republican senator to suggest that his colleagues should at least consider an Obama-nominated replacement for Scalia, breaking with the hard-line position of McConnell. On Tuesday morning, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) warned that his colleagues should not automatically block any nominee, saying the party risks “[falling] into the trap of being obstructionists.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has not ruled out holding committee hearings on Obama’s pick. And Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has said he would “look at” a nominee put forward by Obama…While most Senate Republicans have sided with McConnell’s decision not to hold any hearings, not everyone has been outwardly supportive. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), for example, recently said that all Supreme Court nominees deserve “in-depth consideration given the importance of their constitutional role and their lifetime tenure.”

It has been argued that the President could make a recess appointment, who could serve without confirmation until the next congress convenes. Veteran High Court reporter Lyle Denniston observes at SCOTUSBlog,

…Less than two years ago, the Supreme Court severely narrowed the flexibility of such temporary appointment power, and strengthened the Senate’s capacity to frustrate such a presidential maneuver.
It is true that one of the Justices regarded as a giant on the Court’s history, William J. Brennan, Jr., actually began his lengthy career with just such a short-term appointment. The chances of that happening again today seem to have diminished markedly.
..Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess? Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action. Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority.
In that circumstance, a recess appointment to the Court would not be within the terms of the Constitution, as spelled out in Article II.

In that context, a recess appointment could be more than a little problematic, with lots of distracting side-battles. With that in mind, the President still has another way to get his appointee confirmed. It would just take longer. He could appoint a highly-qualified candidate, who gains the wholehearted endorsement of both Democratic presidential candidates. The SCOTUS nominee might be blocked from confirmation in this session, but could have added leverage in the next session, with a new president and Senate.
Some of the potential candidates who have been suggested:
Judge Jane Kelly, age 41 – Tom Goldstein notes, “Eighth Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, who was confirmed by a vote of ninety-six to zero, with the strong support of Senator Grassley. So she will almost certainly be a serious candidate.” But she has served on that court for 2 years.
Attorney-General Loretta Lynch, age 55 – “…Her confirmation vote in the Senate was close (because of Republican votes), so the administration could not make the point that she had been uniformly supported in the past…” But the Republicans could delay her by asking for all sorts of documents pertaining to her tenure as Attorney General, another problematic distraction.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Age 45 — “She was confirmed by without any Republican opposition in the Senate not once, but twice,” notes Goldstein, who thinks she would have a good chance of ultimately being confirmed. She has impressive academic credentials and clerked with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. However, adds Goldstein, “Judge Brown Jackson’s credentials would be even stronger if she were on the court of appeals rather than the district court and if she had been a judge for longer than three years.”
Paul J. Watford – Age 48, is a highly respected Ninth Circuit judge who was confirmed by a 61-34 vote. But he has only served for 3 years. He clerked with Justice Ginsburg and was supported by conservative legal scholars, as well as progressives.
D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, age 47 — Described by Goldstein as “almost a lock to get a Supreme Court appointment in a Democratic administration, because he is so very widely respected and admired. If it were possible to select a consensus candidate whom Republicans would actually confirm, he would surely be it…He also has the great advantage of having been unanimously confirmed.” However, notes Goldstein, he “generates very little political advantage” in the context of 2016 electoral politics.
Judge Merrick Garland, DC Circuit Court, age 63 – “He’s considered a judicial moderate,” notes Michael Tomasky, “and back in 2010, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, always a big player in Supreme Court deliberations, said that Garland would be confirmed for the high court on a bipartisan basis, “No question.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, age 66 – Popular and respected, it’s easy to picture her as a great Supreme Court justice. But her confirmation would mean that Democrats could lose a Senate seat, since Massachusetts has a Republican governor who would appoint her successor. Frequently-cited as a possible presidential candidate in the future, she more likely has higher aspirations. This looks like a non-starter.
These are just some of the names that have been mentioned as possible short-list nominees. But no one should be surprised if the unique politics of 2016 produces a wild card nominee. The race of the eventual nominee could be a factor in how voters perceive the way they were treated by the Republicans. Perceived ideology will surely influence some confirmation votes.
Expect some ferocious political chess surrounding the Supreme Court vacancy over the coming weeks. Regardless of who is eventually nominated by President Obama, however, Democrats are in very good shape for restoring a progressive majority to the Supreme Court.

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

Read more…

At The New York Times Jennifer Steinhauer explains why Senate Majority Leader “Mitch McConnell’s Stance in Confirmation Fight Could Help and Hurt G.O.P.,” noting that a substantial number of significant cases coming up are likely to provoke a close vote by the Supreme Court. Says Steinhauer, “Every deadlocked 4-to-4 decision will spotlight the Senate’s inaction.”
“My hunch is that Obama will try to put the Republicans’ obstructionism in sharp relief by offering a nominee who has won support and praise from GOP senators in the past. Three potential candidates who fit these criteria and won immediate and widespread mention were Merrick Garland and Sri Srinivasan, both judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Jane Kelly, a judge on the 8th Circuit. (I should note that Garland is a dear friend of long standing.)…The partisan outcome of this year’s election just became far more important. This fall, Americans will not just be picking a new chief executive. They will be setting the course of the court of last resort for a generation.” — from E. J. Dionne, Jr.’s Washington Post column
Michael Tomasky makes a case that President Obama should nominate an extremely well-qualified Mexican-American jurist, Tino Cuellar. Having Republican Senators squirming in the spotlight as bigoted obstructionists, says Tomasky, could hammer the GOP’s percentage of the Latino vote in November down to the teens — which improves the chance for a Democratic landslide in November.
John Nichols notes at The Nation that in Saturday’s Republican presidential debate Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio either demonstrated a disturbing ignorance of recent Supreme Court history, or worse a deliberate distortion of the facts. As John Nichols explains in The Nation, “Cruz said, “We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court Justices in an election year.”…The debate moderator, John Dickerson of CBS News, pointed our that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988…”No,” replied the know-it-all senator, “Kennedy was confirmed in ’87.”..”He was appointed in ’87, confirmed in ’88,” said Dickerson.” Nichols points out that Rubio incorrectly asserted that “it’ been 80 years since a “lame duck president” appointed a Supreme Court justice.”
Politico’s Kevin Robillard explains how “Scalia death raises stakes in battle for Senate control” and quotes a likely soundbite for Dems: “”It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” said retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whose seat in Nevada is one of the battlegrounds of 2016. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”
At The New Yorker, John Cassidy asks, “Will the G.O.P. Response to Antonin Scalia’s Death Hand the Election to the Democrats?” Cassidy explains, “If you were a Democratic strategist trying to maximize turnout, what would you most like to see? One possibility, surely, is the prospect of the election being transformed into a referendum on the President versus the do-nothing Republican Congress.”..”Well, the Senate GOP might just have ensured the Obama coalition turns out in 16,” David Plouffe, a former senior adviser to the President, tweeted on Saturday evening.
In her NYT op-ed, “Not Their Mother’s Candidate,” Susan Faludi ponders the “feminist generation gap” and how it is playing out in the 2016 presidential election. Faludi,. author of “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women,” observes “Fueled by the force multiplier of Madeleine Albright’s “special place in hell” quote the next day, the feminist family feud now threatens to engulf a presidential campaign. Women under 30 in New Hampshire went for Mr. Sanders 4:1, while women 65 and older sided nearly 2:1 with Hillary Clinton…That the Democratic agenda, so singularly important to women, could be scuttled by a slugfest between generations of like-minded women is a tragedy we can’t afford.”
Steve Phillips, author of “Brown is the New White,” quoted from his interview by Janell Ross in the Washington Post: “In 2012, Democrats and progressives spent $2.7 billion on political campaigns, and that’s just at the federal level. Since 46 percent of Democratic voters are people of color, roughly half of all political spending should target voters of color — hiring of staff, running ads, organizing and mobilizing voters. We need to take advantage of technological tools that enable us to examine campaign-spending reports. For instance, ProPublica has developed an excellent new tool called Campaign Finance API. We then need to use social media to shine a light on how campaigns are doing, and whether they are spending their money right. …After so many years of focusing on and chasing after white swing voters, many cannot conceptualize or comprehend a reality in which white people are not the most important voters to prioritize…Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison (D) has proved that a sophisticated, culturally competent voter mobilization can actually increase voter turnout in mid-term elections, and he has done so at the same time as voter turnout plummeted in Minnesota and around the country. His program eschewed the typical 30-second television ads targeting white swing voters and instead hired organizers to talk to and mobilize Latinos, renters, black church-goers and African immigrants.”
In his article at The Guardian, “Republican debate in South Carolina: 10 things we learned,” Nicky Woolf has a funny take on the GOP presidential wannabees debate Saturday night. Woolf’s subtitle “Donald Trump bullied Jeb Bush, Ben Carson (mis)quoted Stalin, Ted Cruz attempted to speak Spanish and John Kasich said what we were all thinking” provides a sense of the flavor. But my favorite is #6: “Jeb Bush said he’d moon someone, but it is relatively unclear whom, and whether he ever went through with it.”

While I was watching the PBS Democratic presidential candidates’ debate Thursday night, I noticed Bernie Sanders doing something a lot of Democrats do: changing the subject when asked the non-congenial question of how much government implementing his agenda would involve? I wrote up some analysis and advice on this at New York:

The very first question posed to Bernie Sanders in Thursday night’s PBS debate in Milwaukee is one that’s been asked in some form in every one of the Democratic debates. It was from Judy Woodruff:

Coming off the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, there are many voters who are taking a closer look at you, and your ideas, and they’re asking how big a role do you foresee for the federal government? It’s already spending 21 percent of the entire U.S. economy. How much larger would government be in the lives of Americans under a Sanders presidency?

Sanders “answered” by talking about the redistribution of income to the wealthy that’s been under way for a long time, and the health-care entitlement as it exists in other countries, and then started through his whole policy agenda, until Woodruff interrupted:

But, my question is how big would government be? Would there be any limit on the size of the role of government?

Sanders began his answer with “Of course there will be a limit,” but instead of saying what that might be he wandered back into his recitation of things that needed to be done. Finally Clinton decided to give him a hand:

Judy, I think that the best analysis that I’ve seen based on Senator Sanders’s plans is that it would probably increase the size of the federal government by about 40 percent …

And before anyone could ask her where she got that cruise missile of a statistic, Clinton went off on a criticism of the Sanders health plan.
Now it’s not entirely clear what “size of government” means without some context. Is it the size of the federal budget? The number of federal employees? The magnitude or intrusiveness of bureaucracy? The burden on taxpayers or businesses? Does it matter if “big government” is concentrated in Washington or power is shared with states and localities?
All these distinctions could be useful to Sanders in defending himself from charges of being an agent of Big Government, which a lot of voters (and not just conservatives) dislike more than Big Corporations or Wall Street. More progressive taxes aren’t necessarily more difficult to administer than less progressive taxes. Breaking up big banks may not be more complicated than trying to regulate them, and once they are broken up, regulation could become easier. Medicare For All would utilize an existing and relatively efficient federal program. Higher infrastructure spending would utilize existing intergovernmental programs that give states and localities some discretion.
The closest Sanders has come to counter-punching on the cost or size-of-government implications of his agenda is his argument that higher taxes for single-payer health care would actually represent net savings for many (if not most) people because they’d no longer have to pay private health insurance premiums (his exact claims are in dispute, but the idea is entirely sound). He could easily extend this argument by pointing out how much people hate to deal with profit-driven health insurance bureaucrats who routinely deny claims and micromanage the choice of providers and prescription drugs. Banks have bureaucracies, too, as anyone who has applied for a loan can tell you, and it would be smart for a candidate like Sanders who doesn’t exactly seem business-friendly to talk about the how the financial industry messes with businesses and investors as well as consumers.
You could almost imagine a Bernie-rific rap where the candidate lays out a vision of what life would be like for most people if his agenda were implemented, and then implicitly (or explicitly) asks if some abstract objection to Big Government is a good reason to reject it.
And beyond that, you would figure that given his foreign-policy views he could suggest some reductions in the size and cost of the very large part of Big Government represented by the Department of Defense.
So far, at least in the debates, he’s not doing any of that. Perhaps he thinks being identified with Big Government is just an occupational hazard for every socialist.
But the questions won’t stop. And Clinton’s drive-by suggestions that a Sanders administration would represent a choice between policies that can’t be enacted and a government that can’t be sustained provide a small, bitter taste of what Republicans will shovel out should Sanders be nominated.

Actually, all Democrats–including Hillary Clinton–will be asked some version of the “Big Government” question by the media and by Republicans. Changing the subject is a bad Democratic habit that needs to stop. Silence isn’t golden; the opposition will fill these gaps with their own version of what Democrats believe, and some voters will just assume the worst.

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

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

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

In last night’s Democratic presidential debate in Milwaukee candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders again provided an impressive example of civility and how to conduct an informative and uplifting discussion of their respective visions for America’s future — and their differences concerning the policies needed to get there.
Those who hoped for a blustering mud-wallow were probably disappointed, though you may see overheated headlines suggesting otherwise.That’s not to say that either candidate was reluctant to call out the adversary with clever zingers. A couple of examples from Tal Kopan’s CNN Politics post “Top 10 lines from the PBS NewsHour Democratic debate“:

“Well I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy and we have yet to know who that is,” Clinton said in response to Sanders slamming Kissinger.
“Let’s not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren’t dumb. Why in God’s name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it; they want to throw money around,” Sanders said of Clinton and Obama taking money from big donors on Wall Street.

There were some wince-inducing moments, including Clinton gushing a little too much about her admiration of Obama. Ed Kilgore noted Sanders’ “harping on old-hippie preoccupations,” such as Nixon era Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s role in Cambodia, and carrying on about FDR and Churchill.
My impression was that Clinton dominated the debate, though not by much. Her closing statement was significantly better, however. Both candidates provided an admirable example of thoughtful, informed and mature political discourse, which we have seen, is no longer to be taken for granted in America.
Overall, this was another confidence-inspiring presidential debate, which stands in dignified contrast to the Republican snarkfests. Trump has nastily insulted so many of his adversaries that it is hard to picture him picking any of them as his running mate, should he win the GOP nomination. But it’s easy to see Clinton and Sanders running together on the same ticket. Both are doing so well that it may become hard to do otherwise.
Taking a step back and surveying the value of the Democratic debates so far, there is reason for Dems to be optimistic. These are great debates, and the pragmatist vs. idealist theme that has emerged can help to clarify Democratic Party priorities. Both candidates are also setting a solid example for Democratic candidates running down-ballot, and that’s a good thing indeed.
Those who missed the debate can watch it right here.

NYT reporters and editors preview tonight’s Democratic presidential candidate debate in Milwaukee. “Hillary Clinton’s campaign just started airing a powerful ad in South Carolina highlighting her record of fighting for criminal justice reform and decrying “systemic racism.” I’ll be watching to see if — and how — Mrs. Clinton brings up race and gender issues as she seeks to restore a solid base after losing big to Mr. Sanders in New Hampshire,” says Nick Corasaniti in one overview.
Josh Putnam’s “A Glossary of National Convention Delegate Allocation” at Sabato’s Crystal Ball provides a much-needed guide for us perplexed primary watchers.
The Feb. 20 Nevada caucuses aren’t getting as much media play as did NH or the upcoming SC primaries (Feb 27). But “It really is the first test there is of how effective you are going to be in mobilizing the Democratic coalition in a general election,” says Rebecca Lambe, senior strategist for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of NV. It’s a smaller state than SC, but has more delegates than NH. NYT’s Adam Nagourney reports that “This state is as racially diverse as Iowa and New Hampshire are not: About 20 percent of the Democratic electorate is Hispanic, and 13 percent African-American. Over 95 percent of Vermont, his home state, is white.” The state is considered a Clinton stronghold, but the Sanders campaign, hoping to benefit from NV’s same-day registration, is committing resources to make it a fight.
And here’s why the NV polls are not much help in predicting the outcome.
SC is considered Clinton country, as well. But most of the media interest will likely be in the Republican race, where it could be Bush’s last stand, or alternatively, his comeback moment. We’ll see how much clout dropout Sen. Lindsey Graham has with his Bush endorsement, although Gov. Terry Branstad’s squiring Christie around in Iowa didn’t help him much. It’s early yet, but 2016 doesn’t seem like a great year for successful endorsements.
The ‘Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein’ theme has gotten a pretty thorough workout across media platforms during the last year. But Nicholas Kristof’s latest column offers several well-stated insights about it, including “Republican leaders brought this on themselves. Over the decades they pried open a Pandora’s box, a toxic politics of fear and resentment, sometimes brewed with a tinge of racial animus, and they could never satisfy the unrealistic expectations that they nurtured among supporters.”
At The Fix Phillip Bump explains why “Democrats may have an enthusiasm problem in 2016,” and notes “The Republicans had more voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire than did the Democrats.” But Darrell M. West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution describes turnout for both parties as “healthy,” presaging a high-turnout election in November.
E. J. Dionne, Jr. notes of Hillary Clinton’s image problem: “…A woman who can be charming and engaging outside the context of politics has offered neither a crisp explanation for why she’s running nor a persuasive answer to those who see her as untrustworthy. And her burden is formidable: She must readjust her candidacy without seeming to be contriving a new personality for new circumstances.” The need for a “crisp explanation” makes sense. Candidates really need a compelling sentence or two, perhaps a soundbite, about their reason for running as opposed to a windy laundry list. Jack Olsen, a frequent TDS commenter, has a perceptive observation about this difference between Clinton and Sanders messaging thus far. As for the “untrustworthy” problem, a strategy to contradict the overstated ‘soft on Wall St’ critique might help.
At The Atlantic Ronald Brownstein addresses her challenge in his article “Can Hillary Clinton Convince Voters They’re Not Settling? The former secretary of state will have to shift her strategy as she faces her surging Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders.” Brownstone argues, “Clinton wants to present herself as a doer who can produce incremental progress, while her opponent offers unachievable dreams. The problem is that, as in the 2008 race, this positions her as the dour chaperone at the party, offering half-measures while glumly raining on the transcendent change her opponent promises…That’s hardly an inspirational message–particularly for the younger voters who have flocked to Sanders in stunning proportions across Iowa and New Hampshire…Even after her New Hampshire collapse, Clinton still has significant advantages, particularly predominant support among minority voters. But if Sanders continues to drive the campaign argument, those defenses will face increasing strain.”

Before you let anyone convince you that Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s surprise second-place finish in New Hamsphire gives Republicans an electable new option, consider this evaluation I made of his prospects at New York this morning:

Kasich pursued the same basic strategy as his chief political adviser, longtime McCain hand John Weaver, laid out for 2012 candidate Jon Huntsman: In a crowded field of candidates trying to out-conservative each other, go for that wallflower at the dance, the moderate or “somewhat conservative” voter, where they are most in abundance. Among the early states, that would be New Hampshire.
And so Kasich poured all his resources (including an estimated $10 million or so in ads, mostly run by a super-pac) into the Granite State, and accentuated two features considered a handicap by most candidates: the longest history of elected service in the field (he was elected to the Ohio Senate when Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were small children), and such moderate positions as support for the Obamacare-provided Medicaid expansion and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. The other candidates for the most part ignored Kasich and conceded him the RINO vote. Going down the stretch, his trajectory was similar to Huntsman’s (the former Utah governor got 17 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, which was enough for a third-place finish well behind Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, but not enough to sustain a campaign going forward). But then Kasich got lucky. In a pre-primary debate, Chris Christie humiliated presumed Establishment champion Marco Rubio, and in the ensuing scrum, the Ohioan sneaked through untouched to narrowly finish second. With 16 percent, he actually did a bit worse than Huntsman, but context is everything.
If you look at the exit polls from New Hampshire, Kasich’s narrow but sufficient (in this state, anyway) path to second place was pretty clear: He won 20 percent or more among self-identified moderates, those earning over $200,000, people who perceive themselves as “getting ahead financially,” voters focused on the economy and jobs, and those who reject banning Muslim immigration and favor a path to legalization for the undocumented. It’s very important to understand that voters like this are not in heavy supply in South Carolina or in the southern states that crowd the calendar on March 1. With both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio struggling to survive in what’s left of the “Establishment Lane,” Kasich can no longer expect a relatively benign treatment from other candidates. His willingness to defend a Medicaid expansion is the rankest heresy charge he will face, though there are already signs that his budget-cutting record will be savaged in the Palmetto State by Bush ally Lindsey Graham for threatening defense spending, a holy sacrament in that state sagging with military facilities. It’s unclear how Kasich will respond other than by spending little time in South Carolina and hoping he can somehow remain viable until Michigan and his own Ohio vote on March 8 and March 15 (respectively). He has zero infrastructure in the intervening states, in any event, and it’s unclear whether his New Hampshire showing will loosen many purse strings on his behalf.
Kasich could presumably zigzag strategically and stop trying to sound less conservative than his own record would indicate. But it seems like the issue that gets him personally excited is that perpetual snoozer, a balanced budget constitutional amendment. At a moment when conservatives appear to have again forgotten about fiscal probity in their zeal to cut taxes and deport immigrants and prosecute Middle Eastern wars, Kasich appears more than a bit out of touch.
All in all, Kasich’s moment in the sun doesn’t look likely to last very long. He could perhaps be lifted over the many obstacles to this nomination — or at least kept in contention until those April and May primary states where self-identifed moderates again walk the earth in sizable numbers — if Republican elites concluded he was their best bet to keep Donald Trump and Ted Cruz away from the nomination. But to paraphrase the late journalist Hunter Thompson, counting on John Kasich to stop Donald Trump is a bit like sending out a three-toed sloth to seize turf from a wolverine. Who would want to place a multi-million-dollar bet on that?

Probably no one. And so John Kasich will likely turn out to be the political equivalent of a one-hit wonder.