Re last night’s GOP debate, the pundit and prediction markets consensus seems to be that Rubio amped up his game with punchy rebuttals and hogging more time than previously. Carson won the new twitter followers and Facebook ‘likes’ derbies, while Bush scored the bold-type quote of the evening at Rubio’s expense with his carefully-crafted zinger referencing the “French work-week.” But Trump edged out Rubio and smoked all of the other candidates (Bush dead last) on stage on the applause-o-meter, reports Andre Tartar in his Bloomberg by-the-numbers post.
At FiveThirtyEight.com Nate Silver mulls over the debate and some recent numbers and concludes “Yeah, Jeb Bush is Probably Toast.”
The concerted GOP whine of the evening was that the media has failed to give their presidential candidate field enough softballs. NBC’s Chuck Todd called it a “premeditated attack” on the media. All of which smells like the GOP field hopes to intimidate the MSM from asking tough questions.
Speaking of softballs, the hapless “undercard” candidates were actually asked if they thought the day after the superbowl should be a national holiday.
A new Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ support for the Tea Party has dropped to its lowest level since the movement emerged on the national political scene prior to the 2010 midterm elections. Seventeen percent of Americans now consider themselves Tea Party supporters.”
Back in the real world, a just-released Associated Press-GfK poll shows strong support for tighter gun laws: “Eight in 10 Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while 6 in 10 Republicans want them left as they are or loosened…Still, the results show the calls for tighter laws have some bipartisan appeal, with 37 percent of Republicans, including 31 percent of conservative Republicans, favoring stricter gun laws,” reports AP’s Emily Swanson.
A newly-published ‘Third Way’ report makes the case that “The Democratic economic agenda should be organized around one over-arching goal: sustained private sector economic growth that expands and greatly benefits the middle class.”
Could it be that the continuing litany of scandals involving former GOP House speakers and Boehner’s failed legacy sets an irresistibly low bar for Paul Ryan, as he preps for the speakership?
‘Partner” would be a contortionist’s stretch.

Former political editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Tom Baxter catches Mitt Romney in a classic Republican screw-up/walkback and puts it in context of the GOP’s increasingly schitzy framing of Obamacare and Medicare expansion:

Paying tribute to a departed friend last week, Mitt Romney stumbled into the sort of gotcha moment that causes former supporters of the 2012 Republican standard-bearer to flinch.
“Without Tom pushing it,” Romney said of businessman Tom Stemberg, “I don’t think we would have had Romneycare. Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So, without Tom a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”
Realizing he had trampled into a sacred cow, Romney quick backtracked and issued a standardized denunciation of Obamacare. But Romney is not alone in his gotcha.
“I was personally against the Affordable Care Act… But we lost, folks,” Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said recently in a speech to a group of seniors. “We lost. And we lost in court. So what we have to do now is move past that, take the resources we have available and try to improve the quality of life for the people of Alabama and that’s exactly what I’m going to do.”
Pressed later to say whether he was moving toward accepting the Medicaid expansion at the heart of the Affordable Care Act, Bentley gave a response that is the perfect reflection of Republican ambivalence on this subject:
“You know I wouldn’t say nudging toward it,” said Bentley. “But we are certainly looking at that; not right now. We are not at that stage right now.”
That’s the picture from the hinterlands, where a collapsing rural healthcare system and a disproportionate share of the uninsured are making it progressively harder to hold the line on the Medicaid expansion. Mitt Romney said no more than the truth: without a movement toward something like the Affordable Care Act, a lot more people today would be without health insurance. Those who still aren’t tend to be in states which have held the line against this movement, riddled with problems though it may be.

Democratic candidates should make more of all this GOP talking tough about Obamacare coupled with caving on Medicaid expansion — yet another gift from the bottomless well of Republican double-talk.

In his Wall St. Journal column, “The New Democratic Coalition: The party has moved to 41% liberal from 21% since 2000, but seeks a unifying candidate,” William A. Galston writes:

The Democratic contenders for 2016 are dealing with a party that has shifted left in the 14 years since the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency. In 2000, according to an October report from the Pew Research Center, 43% of Democrats identified themselves as moderate, 27% as liberal and 24% as conservative. In 2015, 41% of Democrats think of themselves as liberal–a 14-point jump. The moderates’ share of the party dropped to 35%, the conservatives’ to 21%. Half of the Democrats who participate in the 2016 nominating process are likely to be liberal.
The candidates will be vying to lead Barack Obama’s Democratic Party. Pew researchers find that 61% of Democrats who say they may vote in the primaries and caucuses will be more likely to support candidates who offer plans similar to those of the Obama administration. Only 12% would be less likely to do so. By 45% to 19%, these Democrats say that they will be more, rather than less, likely to support a candidate who wants to expand trade agreements. On this issue, surprisingly, there is no disagreement between liberal and moderate/conservative Democrats.

Galston also notes that the Pew survey shows significant, but unsurprising differences between “liberal,” “moderate” and “conservative” Democrats in their attitudes toward breaking up the big banks and the Iran deal. With respect to the poll’s findings on attitudes toward bipartisan compromise, Galston explains:

The second large contrast between the parties is especially telling. Among possible Democratic primary participants, 60% say they are more likely to favor a candidate who wants to compromise with Republicans. Only 41% of possible Republican participants would be more likely to favor a candidate who wants to compromise with Democrats. Democrats are weary of unending partisan strife; Republicans are gearing up to intensify the battle…Among these Democratic respondents, candidates who espouse a more unifying approach to the presidency are likely to hold the advantage over partisan warriors.

In addition, Galston says, “According to a Pew Research Center study published in June 2014, 56% of voters overall preferred candidates who are willing to compromise; only 39% wanted leaders to stick to their positions, come what may.” But he cites public skepticism about the prospects for political leadership actually pursuing greater bipartisan unity, and concludes, “In these polarized times, the candidate with the most credible response to this challenge is likely to be the next president of the United States.”

A constant feature of dialogue among left-progressives is whether it is time to launch a serious national third party campaign. In his article, “Why Leftists Should Also Be Democrats,” Michael Kazin, co-editor of Dissent addresses the question in the context of today’s politics.
Kazin decries the ‘self-defeating” denial of many leftists that the Democratic party has on numerous occasions proven to be an effective advocate for progressive change benefitting millions of working people. Indeed, has any major social or economic reform of the last century in the U.S. been accomplished without the benefit of Democratic Party leadership?
Dismissing the Democratic Party and its rank and file as hopelessly irrelevant to the quest for a more just society as do some leftists is making the good the enemy of the perfect. As Kazin says, “If you neglect the Dems–or simply denounce them–you are saying, in effect, that the carefully considered strategies of all these people who are trying to transform the nation for the better are simply mistaken.”
Kazin also emphasizes the increasing extremism of the modern GOP as a compelling reason for a unified opposition, and the only real-world alternative at present is the Democratic party. Thus, “any leftist who discourages people from engaging in electoral politics or wastes her vote on a third party is doing her bit, however small, to help Republicans win.” And it’s not all that much of a stretch to add that any eligible voter who chooses to stay home on election day is, in effect, voting Republican.
Taking it a step further, before 2000 you could make a case that a third party vote for purely ideological reasons in certain “safe” blue or lost red states in presidential elections need not do any damage to prospects for progressive change. But the nightmare in Florida in 2000, with its horrific and still-reverberating human and economic consequences, continues to wreak destruction in the U.S. and world-wide. The stakes of ill-considered third party dalliances are now too high to seriously consider.
The Democratic party is not the rigidly-corrupt institution of purist left fantasy. The successful campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example, indicates that there is a prominent place of influence in the Party for advocates of Democratic socialism. Win or lose, Sanders has already pushed his Democratic opposition substantially to the left, and he has been a hell of a lot more effective in doing so than any third party effort since the Progressive party lead by Henry Wallace in 1948.
As Kazin notes, “the Democrats are also an institution that’s quite open to participation by individuals and groups at nearly every level–from county committees to campaign staffs to elections of delegates to the quadrennial nominating convention. That means there are plenty of opportunities to nudge, or push, the party to the left…Bernie Sanders knows all this–which is why he decided to run for president as a Democrat.”
None of this is to argue that third parties are always counter-productive as advocates for progressive change. They are essential components of progressive coalitions in parliamentary systems and the day may come when they are equally important in the U.S. At present, however, that is not the case. As Kazin writes,

It would be wonderful to belong to and vote for a party that stood unambiguously for democratic socialist principles, articulated them to diverse constituencies in fresh and thrilling ways, and had the ability to compete for every office from mayor to legislator to governor to senator to president. But not many Americans speak Norwegian.
In the United States, there are innumerable obstacles to starting and sustaining a serious new party on the left: the electoral laws work against it, most of the media would ignore it, the expenses of building the infrastructure are prohibitive, and the constituency for such a party doesn’t currently exist. A majority of Americans do say they would like to have a third party to vote for. But at least as many of those people stand on the right as on the left, and many others just despise “politics as usual” and seldom, if ever, vote.

Kazin boils down the choice facing progressives considering involvement in third party activism:

It’s a pragmatic question: can one do more to make the United States a more just and humane society and help people in other societies by working inside, as well as outside, the party, or by ignoring or denouncing it? Of course, leftists in the United States should continue to do what they have always done: stage protests, build movements, educate people, lobby politicians, and create institutions that try to improve the lives of the people whom they serve. But political parties are essential to a healthy democracy. And right now, the Democrats are the only party we have.

Part of meeting this challenge is for Democrats to encourage stronger caucuses in party structure, so different factions will feel they have a real voice — and a stake — in the Democratic Party and its victories. In this way, the divisions Democrats are struggling with now can become their electoral edge in the future.

At The Plum Line Greg Sargent interviews Elisabeth Pearson, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, on the topic of Democratic prospects for winning governors races over the next four years. Pearson says, “The big years are 2017 and 2018, when we have 38 races. Nine out of 10 of the largest states are up in that cycle. There will be at least 20 or more open seats. We see the greatest ability to change governorships when there are open seats. There’s a huge amount of potential, particularly in open-seat states that Obama won twice: Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Iowa. There are 12 states in the 2018 cycle that have Republican governors that Obama won. That’s huge for us. That’s why we see a four year cycle…Eighteen of those 35 states are states that we are targeting as important for potential pickup. Let’s say we had fair maps in those 18 states. By our calculations, that would mean about 44 Congressional seats that would move from Republican to Democratic.”
Vice President Biden goes into candid detail about the real reasons for and myths about his decision not to run for President in 2016, and leaves readers with enhanced respect for his character and decency, as well as his life of distinguished public service. Few politicians are more deserving of the high compliment, ‘first-class human being.’
In his National Journal article, “Biden Exit Opens Door For Powerful Clinton Coalition,” Ronald Brownstein writes, “Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden’s de­cision not to enter the Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial race clears the path­way for Hil­lary Clin­ton to as­semble an im­pos­ing demo­graph­ic co­ali­tion in the nom­in­a­tion con­test. It also vastly in­tens­i­fies the pres­sure on Sen. Bernie Sanders, her chief re­main­ing rival, to make in­roads with voters of col­or…the vice pres­id­ent had the po­ten­tial to di­vide two of the con­stitu­en­cies she is re­ly­ing upon: eth­nic minor­it­ies, par­tic­u­larly Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans, and blue-col­lar white voters. Biden’s choice not to run im­proves Clin­ton’s chance of con­sol­id­at­ing most of those voters–and could make the math for Sanders much more dif­fi­cult than if those two con­stitu­en­cies were frag­ment­ing in a race with three ma­jor can­did­ates…Just as Biden’s de­par­ture in­creases the pres­sure on Sanders to court non­white voters, it also height­ens the need for Clin­ton to mo­bil­ize the di­verse con­stitu­en­cies that loom as her fire­wall in what now has more clearly be­come a two-per­son race.”
Capping Clinton’s happy week, Bloomberg Politics Mark Halperin makes the case that “The Most Likely Next President is Hillary Clinton.”
For an exceptionally-impressive analysis of a state legislative election, read Geoffrey Skelley’s Crystal Ball post Vying for Virginia: The 2015 General Assembly Elections: All eyes are on the race for the Virginia Senate, which notes: “In the Senate, Republicans currently hold a 21-19 advantage. However, the lieutenant governor is Ralph Northam (D), who is in a position to break ties in Democrats’ favor. Thus, a net gain of one seat for Democrats would enable them to take back the upper chamber, though they would still need 21 votes sans Northam to pass budgetary legislation (the presiding officer can’t vote on such measures).” It may come down to a suburban Richmond senate district, according to Skelley. “The SD-10 race is a total toss-up, and it may keep everyone up late on Election Night. If Democrats win, they may well regain control of the Senate; if Republicans win, they are almost certain to retain the upper chamber.”
Governor O’Malley challenges Democrats to “find our backbone” on gun control.
There is some good news for Sen. Bernie Sanders, as well. It’s just a snapshot, but Zaid Jilani’s “Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism” at Alternate reports on an October YouGov poll, which indicates that 49 percent of surveyed Democrats say they have a “favorable opinion of socialism,” while 37 percent said they have a “favorable opinion of capitalism.” This is a significant uptick from May in views toward socialism, when YouGov asked the same question and got a 43/43 tie for socialism/capitalism.
Anything can happen in politics, given the right circumstances. Still, I have trouble putting the words “Trump and “electability” together. But apparently 70 percent of Republican voters don’t have that problem, according to a new Associated Press-GFK poll.
Polls, schmolls. “Betting Markets Call Marco Rubio Front-Runner in G.O.P.,” reports Justin Wolfers at The Upshot. Conservative columnist Russ Douthat also sees increasing an likelihood that Rubio wins the GOP nod, despite polling data suggesting the contrary.

From “The Benghazi true believers conduct their witch hunt” by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:

Washington has seen witch hunts before — the McCarthy period comes to mind — but never one where the target was a real woman. As with witches, the Hillary Clinton concocted by the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi does not exist. She is a harridan so evil that she would allow an American installation in Libya to be overrun by terrorists, permit the American ambassador and three others to be killed, cover up the crime with a smokescreen of duplicitous press releases, confine the incriminating truth to a private e-mail server, confide only in a shadowy aide with the code name Sidney Blumenthal and somehow in all this funnel huge amounts of money, possibly billions in Saudi riyals, Chinese renminbi and God only knows how much in bitcoins and Las Vegas casino chips, to a foundation that is doing astounding work in Haiti and Rwanda while, of course, doing something nefarious that will come out only in time. Only Hillary Clinton is capable of such monstrous activity. The Witch!

For Benghazi-obsessed Clinton-haters, she is more like a comic book villain designed for jr. high school C-students, than a reflection of reality. The astounding thing, notes Cohen, is that this is not merely political meme-mongering to them; they actually believe it. As Cohen says,

It occurred to me as I watched the hearing that some Republican members of this gong show of a committee actually believed what they were saying. This was a depressing and frightening realization. I thought all along that the hearings were just about politics — you know, an effort to damage Clinton if and when she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.
…As the hearings droned on, it occurred to me that the Republicans on the committee actually believed in what they were doing. The questions were so stupid, either already answered or contradicted by the evidence — the evidence! damn the evidence — that what we were observing was sort of a religious ritual. Here was a display of belief. Here in the most sinful city of all was a display of faith. They believed. They believed in the evil of Hillary Clinton.
…This was madness on display. This was a glimpse into the mentality of an America that is unhinged by the prospect of a Clinton presidency, which is seen as a continuation of an Obama presidency which, when you think about it, is all rooted in the evil of Roosevelt and how he expanded the federal government. This is a piece of America that ties up Congress, that won’t raise the debt ceiling — the hell with our credit rating — and that could, with only a change of costume, take roles in the musical “Hamilton,” playing the gents who wanted to keep the government small and, by the way, ineffective. Chairman Trey Gowdy — he looks the part. Maybe he can sing.

There is a palpable element of sexism in their demonization of Clinton. You can see the fear and ugly contempt in some of the faces of the Benghazi hearings inquisitors. They simply can’t handle the notion of a strong woman who stands up to them. She must be the embodiment of raw evil. Ditto for the Black president. The infantile ‘Freedom Caucus’ Republicans don’t demonize their white adversaries with equal vehemence — they get a pass on silly memes about their country of origin and faith, if not their patriotism.
What is remarkable is how well Clinton holds up under all this idiocy. After 11 hours of inane ‘gotcha’ questions and snide comments from some of the more witless House Republicans, Clinton likely emerged even stronger to smart voters who are paying attention. She is not only more battle-tested than any of the presidential contenders of either party; the Republicans don’t seem to realize that they are actually improving her political persona, as she learns how to handle their kamikaze attacks with increasing grace, dignity and humor.
Whether Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and presidency or not, she is becoming a better candidate every day. The Democratic party certainly needs more women candidates to win a stable majority, and Clinton’s impressive example may prove instructive for down-ballot women Democrats, as well as for the party’s future presidential candidates.

From the Select Committee on Benghazi Minority Site:
Instead of taking concrete steps to enhance the safety and security of our diplomatic corps overseas, the Select Committee on Benghazi continues to squander millions of dollars and has nothing to show for it other than a partisan attack against Secretary Clinton and her campaign for president.

$4,816,375 and counting as of 8:50 a.m. 9/23/15 – SPENT BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI TO DATE*
(*Based on actual expenditures publicly reported here and then forecasted using the most recent month’s average daily expenditures.)
This calculation does not include the costs of: the independent Accountability Review Board; the eight previous reports by seven Congressional committees; the time, money, and resources consumed by federal agencies to comply with Select Committee requests; or the opportunity cost of not spending this money elsewhere, like improving security for our diplomatic officers abroad.
The Select Committee on Benghazi has been investigating for 533 Days, which is longer than the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Iran-Contra and Hurricane Katrina.

The Benghazi Research Center estimates that costs to the taxpayer could exceed $20 million when all is completed.
Think also of all the expenses incurred by the media in covering this nothingburger — time and money that should have been used to illuminate real issues and policies for the benefit of Americans.

There are still plenty of people, from moneybags donors to political scientists, along with some Democrats, who are convinced Jeb Bush will ultimately win the Republican presidential nomination. Maybe Bush himself is supremely confident despite his dubious poll ratings and the beatings he seems to take everytime he tries to engage Donald Trump.
But I have to say, Team Bush’s current situation just has to be discouraging, particularly when you consider what might have been, as I discussed today at the Washington Monthly:

A new Quinnipiac poll of Iowa shows Bush still scratching around the second tier of candidates at 5%, below even the doomed Rand Paul, and with an underwater approval ratio of 43/51. Worse yet, a new Bloomberg Politics/St. Anselm’s poll of New Hampshire shows that a month-long positive ad blitz by Murphy’s Right to Rise Super-PAC has done absolutely nothing to improve Jeb’s horse-race standing or his approval ratios.
Think about how this must feel to Jeb Bush himself. He’s been spending time in Iowa since 1980, when he campaigned there for Poppy. Yet the more Iowans see of him, the less they seem to like him, which is not a recipe for a late surge, is it?
More broadly, consider the arc of Jebbie’s political career. Had he not in his first gubernatorial run unaccountably stumbled against the He-Coon, Lawton Chiles, in the great Republican year of 1994, he would have almost certainly been the dynastic presidential candidate in 2000 with massive Establishment and Conservative Movement backing (indeed, he was universally considered the one True Conservative in the whole clan back then). As governor of Florida, he probably would not have needed a coup d’etat from the U.S. Supreme Court to carry the state and the election. He could have been the one to “keep us safe” after 9/11. As the most serious of the Bush brothers, he quite possibly would not have required Dick Cheney as a caretaker and foreign policy chief, and perhaps would not have rushed into an Iraq War so precipitously. With his experience governing a perennial hurricane target, Jeb almost certainly would not have mishandled Katrina so grievously. But any way you look at it, he’d probably by now be enjoying the warm embrace of a post-presidential career instead of enduring the insults of surly Tea Partiers on the campaign trail and looking up wistfully at the poll standings of people like Donald Trump and Ben Carson.
The Carson thing has got to be especially galling to Jeb. Here’s a guy who not only has never run for office, but is suspending his campaign to go on a book tour. Yet the same poll that shows a majority of Iowa Republicans disapproving of Jeb Bush gives Carson an almost unimaginable 84/10 ratio.
Maybe Bush has nerves of steel or Murphy has hired a hypnotist to accompany him everywhere and buzz away any consciousness of discouraging words. But if I were him I’d be tempted to blow the whole thing off and go make money until it’s time for assisted living. As it stands, Jeb must wonder if Lawton Chiles is laughing at him from the Great Beyond.

The following article by Jennifer Granholm, former Governor of Michigan, Senior Adviser, Correct The Record and Senior Research Fellow, UC Berkeley’s Energy and Climate Institute is cross-posted from HuffPo:
Surprise! If you’ve been paying federal taxes for the past few years, then you’ve been funding a Republican hit job against Hillary Clinton. The House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigations have bilked — in total — around $4.7 million in taxpayer dollars for their relentless, shameless, fact-free pursuit of damaging the Clinton campaign. When the Republicans take aim at “waste, fraud and abuse” they should set their sights on their own Benghazi Committee, shoot it, and put it out of our misery.
Today, Hillary Clinton will finally testify before the committee and its right-wing chair, Trey Gowdy. Still don’t believe that the committee is nothing more than a partisan smear campaign? Try these top ten facts on for size.
10. Ten is the number of congressional committees that have participated in Benghazi investigations over the years–contributing to 9 of the 11 different published reports on those tragic events. None of the investigations have found any evidence of wrongdoing by the administration.
9. Nine is the number of months since Chairman Trey Gowdy’s partisan committee has held its last public hearing. Gowdy has preferred to shroud his investigations in secrecy–so he and his staff can selectively leak information to the press and gin up damaging stories.
8. Eight is the number of current or former close Clinton confidants interviewed by Gowdy’s committee–as opposed to only 4 interviews with representatives from the Department of Defense. I wonder why Gowdy thinks Hillary Clinton’s personal assistant knows more about the incidents at Benghazi than DoD?
7. Seven is for seventy thousand–roughly the number of documents that the State Department has handed over to the Benghazi Committee for review. Remember that the cost to taxpayers isn’t just what the Committee itself spends–it’s what other agencies have to spend to meet their absurd, partisan demands. Estimates suggest the State Department has had to spend upwards of $14 million responding to congressional investigations into Benghazi.
6. Six is for the six thousand dollars in donations that Trey Gowdy just had to return to organizations linked to a shadowy anti-Hillary Clinton PAC – whose treasurer used to serve as the treasurer for Gowdy’s own political committee. What a coincidence!
5. Five is for the number of permanent House committees (including the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs!) that have spent less taxpayer money in 2015 than Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Committee.
4. Four is for the four years that Hillary Clinton served this country as Secretary of State–a tenure of accomplishment that has been praised by Democratic and Republican officials alike. Four is also for the four seconds it took after Hillary Clinton announced her presidential campaign for the Republican National Committee to begin to try to take her down.
3. Three is the number of Benghazi Select Committee press releases between March 4th and October 8th that don’t specifically mention Hillary Clinton. Twenty-six press releases DO mention these things. Remember when Trey Gowdy told us his committee wasn’t focused on Hillary?
2. Two is for the two Republicans in the House of Representatives – Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Representative Richard Hanna — who admitted that the Benghazi Committee was set up intentionally to bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
1. One is for the one man who is behind this whole witch hunt–Trey Gowdy– funded and supported by the Koch Brothers. Over the course of his shameful, multi-year smear campaign, Gowdy has gone from a mere two-term Congressman from South Carolina to a right-wing darling. He’s been discussed as a future Majority Leader, Speaker of the House, Supreme Court Justice, Vice President, even President of the United States. Ain’t politics grand?

Prepare yourself for a nauseating display of shameless grandstanding by the GOP’s most hypocritical Hillary-Haters, otherwise known as the Benghazi hearings, which begin today. At The Week Paul Waldman explains why the whole project may backfire in a big way on the Republicans. “In hearings like this one, the members of Congress often think that the fantastically clever line of questioning they’ve prepared is really going to trap the witness and reveal her for what she is; it’ll be like Perry Mason breaking a witness down until she shouts, “Yes, I did kill him, and I’d do it again!” But that’s not how it usually turns out. More often, the witness looks like the one in command, someone being pelted with unfair and hostile questions from a bunch of partisan clowns who barely know what they’re talking about…A respectful and informative hearing that does no damage to Clinton will be a terrible disappointment,” notes Waldman. And an expensive one as well.
A WaPo/ABC News poll conducted 10/15-18 indicates that 53 percent of respondents believe that Republicans are “mainly trying to damage Clinton politically” in the Benghazi hearings. Only 35 percent agreed that they are “raising legitimate concerns.”
It appears at this juncture that Rep. Paul Ryan’s ploy forcing the GOP’s “Freedom Caucus” to grovel in response to his demands is working rather well. But I wonder if the speakership is really what he wanted — the pitch seemed crafted to elicit a “hell no” response from the yahoos. With benefit of hindsight, it seems pretty clever, enhancing his stature either way. David Hawkings explores the implications for Ryan’s political future at Roll Call, noting that Ryan will be 50 years of age in 2020 and his kids will be teenagers.
Kind of sad to see an end to Vice President Biden’s presidential aspirations. He has long been one of the party’s more capable leaders. He might make an exceptionally-good Secretary of State, a post he once declined in favor of the vice presidency.
Ed Kilgore’s post at right and below on third party prospects in 2016 includes a perceptive take on Sen. Jim Webb’s candidacy and future. Many feel Webb provides a needed voice in the Democratic Party, which seems reasonable. But I don’t recall ever seeing a more stiff and guarded presidential candidate on TV.
You have to dig down to the eight paragraph of this misleadingly-titled CNN.com article to find that “Other polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support expanding background checks to private sales and sales at gun shows, where people can buy guns without undergoing a background check.”
Mark Niquette’s Bloomberg Politics post, “Democrats Seek to Stem Republican Tide in Off-Year Races” provides an update on what is at stake this year, noting, “Governorships will be decided in Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky, where there’s a contest to replace term-limited Democrat Steve Beshear. There are legislative races in four states, one of which will determine Senate control in Virginia, a presidential swing state where the parties have battled over issues including Medicaid expansion. Mayoral contests will be decided in 417 municipalities including Indianapolis, where Democrats want to replace one of only three Republican chief executives among the 15 most populous cities.”
Journalistsresource.org presents some interesting data in “Factors affecting minority-voter turnout: Research,” and also notes that “A 2015 study published in the American Journal of Political Science looks at how preregistration, or the registration of youth before they reach voting age, influences voter turnout. A 2015 study from the University of South Carolina suggests that the Democratic Party and civil-rights organizations can play an important role in mobilizing black voters if they strengthen their organizational features.”
At The Upshot Josh Barro explains why Bernie Sanders is really more of a capitalist reformist than Democratic socialist: “After all, Mr. Sanders does not want to nationalize the steel mills or the auto companies or even the banks. Like Mrs. Clinton, he believes in a mixed economy, where capitalist institutions are mediated through taxes and regulation. He just wants more taxes and more regulation than Mrs. Clinton does. He certainly seems like a regular Democrat, only more so.”