Whatever Donald Trump’s ever-escalating Islamophobia is doing to the Republican presidential nominating contest, it’s creating some abiding problems for the GOP itself. I wrote about that yesterday at New York:

If you want to understand the exquisite dilemma Republican leaders not named Donald Trump are in right now, look no further than the new online Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies survey that asked Americans about Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country temporarily. It showed likely Republican primary voters favoring it by a 65-22 margin (with 13 percent saying they don’t know). But among likely general-election voters, opposition to the proposal led by a 50-37 margin (again, 13 percent didn’t know).
This is a classic situation where politicians need to choose between the views of the party base and those of general-election swing voters on a highly emotional issue that probably isn’t going to go away. Indeed, if international reaction to Trump’s “idea” continues to grow louder and angrier, we can expect that to strengthen antipathy to the entry-ban concept among general-election voters, while GOP base voters, steeped recently in American-exceptionalism rhetoric, may not budge or could even become more defiantly attached to Trump’s style of nationalist “strength.”

It’s a problem no post-convention “etch-a-sketch” can quickly erase.

So which measures to reduce income inequality attract the most support? Suzy Khimm reports at The New Republic: “A recent study conducted by economists from Princeton, Harvard, and University of California, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez–one of the most prominent researchers on inequality–put the political challenges of the issue in sharper relief. Based on a survey of 10,000 Americans, the study found that those who received more information about inequality were more likely to believe that economic disparity was a problem. At the same time, “they show no more appetite for many government interventions to reduce inequality”–such as an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps–“with the notable exceptions of increasing the estate tax and the minimum wage…The study hypothesizes that Americans are more comfortable with government solutions when they’re narrowly targeted or otherwise limit government involvement. That suggests that any kind of broad government intervention will be a hard sell to the broader public, even if the public believes the scales are unfairly tipped because of government policies.”
At The Monkey Cage Kyle Dropp’s “This new tool puts 50,000 poll questions and 100 demographics at your fingertips” reports on an early Xmas present for political opinion wonks: “This year, we at Morning Consult have addressed that problem by building out a platform called Morning Consult Intelligence. This free platform allows anyone to search and analyze over 50,000 current and historical survey questions from top polling organizations.”
Bill Cotterell, correspondent for the Tallahassee Democrat has an insightful update on Democratic electoral prospects in Florida. Among Cotterell’s observations: “Democrats figure to pick up two, maybe three, seats in the Florida congressional delegation under the redistricting plan approved last month by the state Supreme Court…When a state in which Democrats outnumber Republicans in registration has 17 Republican and 10 Democratic members of the U.S. House, that’s no accident. Not coincidentally, Republicans are the controlling party of both chambers of the Legislature – the same people who fought the “Fair Districts” amendments all the way…All things being equal – which they’re not – Democrats would probably deserve a 14-13 majority in the state’s congressional delegation and Florida’s two U.S. Senate seats would be equally divided – which they are – by the parties.”
As for the sleazier tactics Republicans use to suppress pro-Democratic votes in the Sunshine State, check out Spencer Woodman’s excellent post at The Intercept, “Thanks to Republicans, Nearly a Quarter of Florida’s Black Citizens Can’t Vote.” Woodman explains, “No other state has a larger number of disenfranchised citizens than Florida, where more than 1.5 million people have lost the right to cast a ballot on Election Day, according to the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit prison reform group. Nationwide, nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to felony convictions. Although most states restrict the voting rights of imprisoned felons, Iowa currently is the only one that joins Florida in imposing a lifelong disenfranchisement on ex-felons.”
Tony Monkovic reviews the pros, cons and realities of strategic voting at The Upshot, and notes “Research shows that the rate of so-called party-crasher voting in primaries is generally low. Voters in open primaries, in which you can vote in the primary of either party, are more likely to pick a candidate they like. He notes one failed example: “…Radio host Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” to help Hillary Clinton defeat Barack Obama did not prevent an Obama presidency.”
Hard to wrap your head around it now, but there was a time when the GOP hoped to benefit from the Muslim vote in the U.S. David A. Graham has the story at The Atlantic.
A new AP/GFK poll indicates Trump’s xenophobic take on immigration is shared by too many, even though the poll was conducted before his latest call for a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.: “…54 percent of Americans, including about three-quarters of Republicans, about half of independents and over a third of Democrats, said the United States takes in too many immigrants from the Middle East…By contrast, 46 percent of Americans, including 6 in 10 Republicans, slightly under half of independents and 3 in 10 Democrats, said the U.S. takes too many immigrants from Latin America…Just 28 percent of Americans said the same of immigrants from Europe, with little variation by party identification.”
If Trump wins the GOP nomination, what would his Republican rivals do? The New York Times editorial board offers this clue: “After his remarks on Muslims, how many of Mr. Trump’s rivals have said they would reject his candidacy if he won the nomination? As of Wednesday, none.”
You probably can guess who says “I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race.”

Republicans are sweating bullets when asked to repudiate Donald Trumps bigotry toward Muslims and Mexicans, and so far have only provided limp criticism of Trump’s call. But voters who want to uphold America’s best values about tolerance and brotherhood can take some comfort that one party, at least, refuses to give Trump’s bigotry an easy pass, as evidenced by recent statements from Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.
Hillary Clinton has just posted a strong statement against Donald Trump’s bigotry and his GOP rivals weak response on her campaign web page:

Donald Trump has made a name for himself in this election by trafficking in prejudice and paranoia. Now he says he wants to stop all Muslims from entering the United States. It’s a shameful idea. It’s also dangerous. At a time when America should be doing everything we can to fight radical jihadists, Mr. Trump is supplying them with new propaganda. He’s playing right into their hands.
Now some Republican candidates are saying that Donald Trump’s latest comments have gone too far. But the truth is, many GOP candidates have also said extreme things about Muslims. Their language may be more veiled than Mr. Trump’s, but their ideas aren’t so different.
Ben Carson says that a Muslim shouldn’t be president. Marco Rubio compares Muslims to members of the Nazi Party and refuses to rule out monitoring and closing of mosques. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have suggested that we implement a religious test for Syrian refugees–one that only Christians would pass. Chris Christie says not even 3-year-old Syrian orphans should be let in. And they insist on using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism”–in fact, they criticize anyone who says anything else–even though it drives the exact narrative the jihadists want to advance: that we’re at war with an entire religion.
When you take a step back and see what the Republican field as a whole says about Muslims–not just one or two candidates for President, but nearly all of them–it’s hard to take seriously their attempts to distance themselves from Mr. Trump. He’s just articulating the logical conclusion of what the rest of them have been saying. As Mr. Trump said in an interview this morning, “They condemn practically everything I say, and then they always come to my side.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders has also made his contempt for Trump’s bigotry clear, as noted by John Wagner at Post Politics:

“What somebody like a Trump is trying to do is to divide us up,” Sanders told host Jimmy Fallon. “A few months ago, we were supposed to hate Mexicans. He thinks they’re all criminals or rapists. Now we’re supposed to hate Muslims. And that kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America.”
…”Throughout history, you’ve had demagogues trying to divert attention away from the real issues,” Sanders said. “This country today faces some enormous problems. You know, we have a middle class that is disappearing. We have almost the wealth and income going to the top 1 percent. We have climate change. We have a corrupt campaign finance system.”
“I think what the American people understand is, given the problems we face, we’ve got to stand together, come together and create a decent life for all of our people and stop the scapegoating of one group or another,” Sanders said.

Former Maryland Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley was equally-strong in condemning Trump’s fear-mongering, reports Maryalice Parks at abcnews.com:

“Let me ask you this. Who is next? Catholics? Trade unionists? Artists? We’ve seen this road before, and it does not lead to a good place,” he said.
“Panic and political opportunism are a toxic mix — a mix that can often precede fascism or the plunging of our republic into a security state,” O’Malley added. The audience jeered and booed at his references to Trump.
After the speech, reporters pressed O’Malley on whether he thought Trump himself was a fascist. O’Malley would not say so explicitly, but said the language Trump uses is similar.
“When he pushes things like registries and ID cards based on things like religion, I do believe that is the sort of appeal that historically has often preceded fascism,” he said. “We should not think that we are so superior as a nation that we cannot ourselves fall victim to those sorts of appeals.”

Clinton added,

He’s also taking aim at our values. Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. The notion that here, people are free to practice their faith, whatever it is, is one of America’s most cherished principles…Nearly 3 million Americans are Muslims. They’re our family, our friends, our neighbors, and co-workers. They serve in the military, save lives as doctors and nurses, and serve our communities as police officers, firefighters, teachers, and civic leaders. They’re patriots–proud Americans, just like the rest of us. They deserve better than this.”

Clinton called on Trump’s fellow Republican candidates to come forward and speak out against hate-mongering and scapegoating: “Now is the time for all of us–especially Republican leaders–to stand up to hateful, dangerous words and deeds.”
Given the GOP candidates’ sorry record thus far, it could take a while.

Associated Press reports on a study showing that Utah counties that permit voting by mail are seeing huge increases in turnout:

According to a report released by the Utah Foundation on Wednesday, all 70 cities in Utah that chose to vote my mail increased turnout compared to municipal elections in 2013 and 2011.
The report shows that voter turnout has dipped in recent decades, setting a record low in 2014 with only 28.8 percent of the state’s eligible voters participating in the general election.
Cities that saw major increases in voter participating include Salt Lake City, where canvass results show turnout was 54 percent — up from 13 percent in 2013 and 24 percent in 2011; Green River with 65 percent, up from 35 percent; and Moab with 62 percent, up from 16 percent.

Scott Keyes comments on the Utah study at ThinkProgress:

Researchers found that the effect was particularly pronounced in smaller communities rather than larger cities. Still, some cities saw major gains as well. Salt Lake City, for instance, saw its turnout rate soar to 55 percent in 2015 from 13 percent in 2013 and 24 percent in 2011.
“It’s been smoother on our end; it’s been smoother on (voters’) end,” Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen told the Deseret News after a primary election in August of this year. “We’ve just had a great response.”
Why is this election reform so successful? “Vote-by-mail can increase awareness about smaller elections and potentially have larger turnout in localized issues,” the report concluded. In addition, the convenience factor, especially for workers who can’t take time off on a Tuesday in November, can’t be overlooked. Further boosting vote-by-mail’s case is the fact that it saves states millions in taxpayer dollars by eliminating the need for in-person polling places.
Some caveats do apply. The authors acknowledged that vote-by-mail could have benefited from a “novelty” effect that may fade over time. In addition, whether mail-in voting would have the same outsized effect in non-municipal elections, such as those for Congress or governor, remains in question.
Three states currently conduct all their elections by mail: Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, which just recently joined the club. All three consistently rank among the top states by turnout, and far outperform neighboring states.

No doubt, Republicans will do everything they can to kill reforms which would expand voting by mail, wherever they can. But Democrats should not let this fact discourage them from making voting by mail a top priority. If mail voting can be instituted in communities in overwhelmingly Republican Utah, it can be done anywhere.
And, would it be too much to ask local media to force Republicans to explain their opposition to this much-needed reform? If the media won’t do its job, then local groups of citizens who care about saving American democracy should dog the obstructionists at every public appearance, and make them explain to their constituents on camera why they are against voting by mail.

From Sean McElwee’s “The GOP’s stunning election advantage: How Republicans captured Congress–and how Democrats can win it back: A remarkable new study highlights the crucial role turnout plays in Republican victories“: “CCES data suggest that 23 percent of of nonvoters in 2010 and 27 percent of nonvoters in 2012 said they didn’t vote because they weren’t registered, the most frequently cited reason of all. Among those who only voted in presidential years, disliking the candidates, lack of information and business were the top reasons for not voting in midterm elections. Among the small group (4 percent) of Americans who only voted in midterms, busyness and disliking the candidates were the top reasons for abstaining…Both data sources suggest that core voters are older, whiter, richer and better educated than nonvoters and presidential-only voters. This leads to different partisan identification: nonvoters were mostly either Independents (30 percent) or Democrats (43 percent). Presidential-only voters tilt the most strongly toward the Democrats, with 53 percent saying they are Democrats and only 32 percent identifying as Republican… According to CCES, nonvoters prefered Obama to Romney by a margin of 52 percent to 32 percent, and presidential-only voters preferred him 60 percent to 37 percent. However, core voters preferred Romney over Obama, 49 percent to 48 percent. If presidential elections were decided by core voters, Romney might well have won.”
In his NYT op-ed, “A User’s Guide to the Dark Art of Politics,” Democratic strategist Bret Di Resta illuminates the importance — and the art — of good opposition research.
Robert Reich’s “What to Do About Disloyal Corporations” at HuffPo makes a persuasive case for removing a broad range of economic incentives for companies like Pfizer, which leave the U.S. to avoid taxes. Reich’s argument is succinctly stated in a way that Democratic candidates could articulate in connecting with American workers who are concerned about export of jobs. One of his soundbites: “If Pfizer or any other American corporation wants to leave America to avoid U.S. taxes, that’s their business. But they should no longer get any of the benefits of American citizenship — because they’ve stopped paying for them.”
Bill Moyers and Michael Kinship take no prisoners in their HuffPo post “The GOP on the Eve of Destruction” and provide Democrats with an eloquent summation of Republican damage to our society. “…The Republicans seem to have made up their minds: they will divide, degrade and secede from the Union…They will do so with bullying, lies and manipulation, a willingness to say anything, no matter how daft or wrong. They will do so by spending unheard of sums to buy elections with the happy assistance of big business and wealthy patrons for whom the joys of gross income inequality are a comfortable fact of life. By gerrymandering and denying the vote to as many of the poor, the elderly, struggling low-paid workers, and people of color as they can. And by appealing to the basest impulses of human nature: anger, fear and bigotry.”
At The L.A. Times David Lauter and Evan Halper explain “How the San Bernardino attack has reshaped the political debate — and the 2016 election.”
Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times peel back the layers of demagogic rhetoric that define Trump’s messaging and find…a demagogue. “Several historians watched Mr. Trump’s speeches last week, at the request of The Times, and observed techniques — like vilifying groups of people and stoking the insecurities of his audiences — that they associate with Wallace and McCarthy…”His entire campaign is run like a demagogue’s — his language of division, his cult of personality, his manner of categorizing and maligning people with a broad brush,” said Jennifer Mercieca, an expert in American political discourse at Texas A&M University.”
Rising xenophobia in wake of Paris massacre boosts right-wing in Ipsos-Sopra poll.
Mark Murray reports at MSNBC.com on findings from a new MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll regarding political attitudes following the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino: “Americans are split on their biggest worry, with 36 percent saying it’s a terrorist attack and 31 percent saying it’s gun violence, according to a new MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll…Another 17 said their biggest worry is being a victim of police brutality. The results break down along partisan and racial lines: 60 percent of Republicans say being a victim of a terrorist attack is their biggest concern, versus just 22 percent of Democrats who say that… Conversely, 40 percent of Democrats single out being a victim of gun violence as their biggest worry, compared with just 20 percent of Republicans saying that. And 41 percent of African Americans indicate their biggest concern is being a victim of police brutality, versus just 11 percent of whites who say that.”
And Oscar Williams-Grut spells out “Here’s where terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda get their money” at Business Insider.

So every day Republicans seek to batten on fear of terrorism in a repetition of their success in 2002 and 2004, it’s important to recognize how much has changed since then. In particular, there is very recent evidence that a fear-based 2016 campaign message won’t necessarily work against Democrats, and specifically Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. I wrote about this today at New York:

With a thousand points of darkness pointing toward a fear-of-terrorism-based Republican presidential election, it’s important to remember that the likely Democratic nominee has some national-security credentials of her own. An ABC/Washington Post poll released last week shows that when Americans are asked “Who would you trust more to handle the threat of terrorism?” Hillary Clinton leads every named Republican rival.
The Post‘s Greg Sargent laid it out:

On the question of who is more trusted to handle terrorism, Clinton leads Trump among Americans by 50-42; she leads Ben Carson by 49-40; she leads Ted Cruz by 48-40; she leads Marco Rubio by 47-43; and she leads Jeb Bush by 46-43. In fairness, the last two of those are not statistically significant leads, and among registered voters, her lead “slims or disappears.” But this poll does suggest at a minimum that there is no clear edge for the GOP candidates over Clinton on the issue.
What’s striking here is that it comes even as Obama’s approval on terrorism is down to 40 percent. As Post polling guru Scott Clement notes, the poll shows a sizable bloc of voters who disapprove of Obama on terrorism but nonetheless say they trust Clinton over her GOP rivals on the issue.

So all the attacks on HRC about Benghazi! and alleged security breaches and her association with a president who has been attacked like no president since FDR haven’t significantly eroded her national security credentials. It’s not clear if that fact will convince Republicans to take another tack, or will instead incite them to go even more ballistic on terrorism and national security issues. We will know soon, and perhaps so loudly that even more votes will believe Democrats can bring them peace.

From William Galston’s Wall St. Journal column, “Making Our Roads ‘Shovel-Ready’: Hillary Clinton offers a valuable proposal for an overdue upgrade of U.S. infrastructure.”:

On Sunday, with less national fanfare than the announcement deserved, Hillary Clinton released a major proposal to boost infrastructure investment by $500 billion, much of this over the next five years. The plan includes three principal financing mechanisms: direct public investments, subsidies to reduce interest costs on taxable infrastructure bonds, and a national infrastructure bank that would leverage $25 billion in public seed capital that would support up to an additional $225 billion in direct loans, guarantees and other forms of credit enhancement.

You can almost hear the conservative knee-jerk response, “So who is going to pay for all of this?” Galston has an answer. But first he explains that all Americans are going to pay, and pay dearly if we continue to do nothing about our crumbling infrastructure, a point that should always be underscored. The opportunity costs of infrastructure repair have become untenable:

The case for action is clear. Over the past three decades, America has systematically underinvested in infrastructure by about 1% of GDP each year, resulting in a shortfall of trillions of dollars. The nation’s roads, highways, bridges and dams are aging, imposing extra costs (an estimated $377 annually per driver) to operate a motor vehicle while exposing everyone to increased risk. Many ports and the transportation networks that support them are becoming impediments to the efficient flow of trade. Anyone who has traveled outside the U.S. knows that many American airports are far from world class…Each year of delay raises project costs substantially.

Further, adds Galston,”In the most recent Global Competitiveness Rankings issued annually by the World Economic Forum, the U.S. stood…only 13th for infrastructure quality as a whole, 14th for roads, 15th for railways and 16th for electrical-supply systems.”
As for financing the needed infrastructure upgrades, Galston notes that “The principal source of funding for surface transportation, the 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax, has not been raised since 1993, and resistance to any further increase is intense, especially in rural areas and small towns whose residents typically drive long distances for work, shopping and medical services.” He argues for exploring “new strategies, including the more leveraged use of scarce public funds to reduce interest rates on taxable bonds and attract private capital for infrastructure” and “routing more project choices through an infrastructure bank with an independent board and skilled technical experts.”
“Western democracies such as Germany and Canada generally grant permits,” Galston points out, “including environmental reviews–for major infrastructure projects in two years or less,” He applauds Clinton’s plan’s to “cut red tape” and “streamline permitting,” which is “in sharp contrast to the fragmented U.S. system wherein an aggrieved group can thwart decisions for years.”
Gaston warns, however, that by tying up proposed projects in ‘regulatory knots,’ the U.S. has become irrationally timid about fixing broken-down public facilities that serve all Americans. Meanwhile “other democracies can plan, fund and execute projects in less time than it takes in the U.S. to complete the required environmental-impact statements.”
It may be that the time is fast approaching when a coalition of Democrats and a handful of Republicans who are fed up with their party’s knee-jerk obstruction of urgent public works projects, can help the nation achieve the needed upgrades. But Galston believes there must also be a consensus “to strike a better balance between parochial concerns and the public interest.”
Galston is surely right that Clinton’s plan is the most detailed, credible set of infrastructure improvement proposals yet presented. Forging the consensus needed to move forward will likely require an electoral spanking for infrastructure obstructionists, parochial and otherwise.

Trump may get the headlines with his daily outrages, but a new poll brings some very good news for Sen. Bernie Sanders: “A stunning new poll by Quinnipiac suggests Bernie Sanders is the most electable candidate in either party to be the next president of the United States,” says Brent Budowsky, reporting at the Observer News. Budowsky says further,

In the Quinnipiac poll Mr. Sanders would defeat Republican frontrunner Donald Trump by 8 points, while Hillary Clinton would defeat him by only 6 points. Mr. Sanders would defeat Ben Carson by 6 points, while Ms. Clinton would defeat him by only three. Mr. Sanders would defeat Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz by 10 points, while Ms. Clinton would defeat him by five. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton would both defeat Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio by one point.

Budowsky takes a stab at the why behind the numbers, and explains:

First, Mr. Sanders has very high ratings for integrity, trust and authenticity in an election year where large numbers of voters feel strong distrust for major political figures and media institutions.
Second, Mr. Sanders embodies a pure play candidate for a progressive populist agenda that has powerful and, I would argue, majority support from American voters.
Mr. Sanders campaigns against the corruptions of money that plague American politics–in favor of major reforms of Wall Street to make our financial system more fair, for a free public college education financed by a transaction tax on Wall Street speculation, for an increase in social security benefits at a time when next year Americans will receive no cost of living increases in social security benefits, and for a Medicare-for-all health care program that would dramatically lower health care costs far more than ObamaCare or GOP plans to repeal ObamaCare without offering any credible alternative.
These positions all have strong support from voters and are offered by a candidate with a strong reputation for championing major reforms and income inequality with high levels of credibility and trust.

For a little icing on the Sanders cake, Sam Frizzell reports at Time Magazine that the Senator has another good news story percolating:

With less than four days until TIME’s Person of the Year poll closes, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is holding on to a strong lead over some of 2015’s most influential people.
The Vermont Senator had 10.5% of the vote in the reader poll as of Thursday morning, well ahead of Malala Yousafzai, who is in second place at 5.2%. Trailing Sanders is Pope Francis, at 3.8%, TIME’s 2013 Person of the Year. Sanders is far ahead of other presidential candidates, including Republican Donald Trump (2%) and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton (1.3%).

Sen. Sanders has been around long enough to know such poll leads can evaporate as fast as they appeared. What may prove a source of more enduring satisfaction for the Sanders campaign, however, is that his progressive policies are getting traction across the political landscape — and that would not have happened without his leadership.

After the latest gun massacre in San Bernardino, and before a whole lot was known about the killers and their motives, there was already a sense of ennui setting in among Beltway elites about the tedious gun policy debate that would soon set it. At New York today, I wrote about this deplorable refusal to deal with the gun policy issue:

Liberals need to understand, however, that it’s precisely this fatigue, and the underlying assumption that both sides in the perpetual “gun debate” are equally to blame for its unproductive nature, that is the secret weapon of the NRA and Second Amendment ultras everywhere. There are obviously many other things that are relevant to a gun massacre, from possible terrorist links to mental-health issues. But gun policy should always be in order after a gun massacre.
That’s not how the King of False Equivalency, National Journal columnist Ron Fournier, sees it, of course. In his first post-San Bernardino piece, he excoriates gun-control advocates (among whom he placed himself) for offending the tender sensibilities of all those gun-control opponents who are piously calling for prayer rather than legislation.

Re­pub­lic­ans are do­ing more than pray­ing. They’re not do­ing nearly enough, from my vant­age point, but if we’re go­ing to move bey­ond verbal wars and ac­tu­ally start fix­ing this prob­lem, the first step is to ac­know­ledge the oth­er side’s point of view. Un­der­stand it. Re­spect it. Then ex­ploit it.
For ex­ample, couldn’t a smart group of gun con­trol ad­voc­ates seize on the Na­tion­al Rifle As­so­ci­ation’s talk­ing point about men­tal health and work to­ward ma­jor re­forms of the U.S. sys­tem?

Does a single soul other than Ron Fournier think the NRA will expend an ounce of its vast political capital fighting for reforms in the U.S. mental-health system? I doubt it. And why should they? They are not the National Rifle and Mental Health Association. And so the injunction to gun-control advocates to find some way to work with Wayne LaPierre after changing the subject from guns is a counsel of surrender and despair.
If the next mass-killing spree in this country is conducted by dynamite, harpoons, or crossbows, and liberals talk about gun control, Fournier and other critics will have a point. But not this time. And it really doesn’t matter if certain elites find the topic boring.

Unfortunately, we may not have to wait that long to come to grips with this issue all over again.

Looks like the mass shooting in San Bernadino may spark yet another round of Islamophobia, egged on by right-wing media. The tragedy has also ignited a fierce debate among voters about the value of politicians’ “thoughts and prayers” vs. gun control again.
WaPo’s Sean Sullivan reports “How the 2016 presidential candidates are reacting to the California mass shooting.” Maybe it’s time for the media to make Republicans flesh out the “thoughts” part of their “thoughts and prayers” bromide a bit.
The FiveThirtyEight Gang, Nate Silver, Micah Cohen and Harry Enten have a conversation to test Silver’s view that Donald Trump probably ain’t gonna get the GOP nomination. Among Silver’s more persuasive points: “Polls don’t mean much at this stage and aren’t very predictive…A polling front-runner wins more often than not when the front-runner is at 50 percent in the polls, like Hillary Clinton is now. But Trump’s at 25-30 percent nationally and a bit less than that in Iowa…It’s not just that Trump has no support from his party. It’s that the party is actively looking to stop him because he’d be a catastrophe as their nominee.” I’m going way out on a limb here and say that any crazy thing can happen, especially with such a large field of flawed candidates.
NYT’s First Draft explains why “Senate Republicans Up for Re-Election Are Urged to Keep Distance From Donald Trump“: “”Let’s face facts. Trump says what’s on his mind and that’s a problem,” wrote Ward Baker, the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Our candidates will have to spend full time defending him or condemning him if that continues. And, that’s a place we never, ever want to be. It is certain that all GOP candidates will be tied in some way to our nominee, but we need not be tied to him so closely that we have to engage in permanent cleanup or distancing maneuvers.””
The Upshot’s Nate Cohn explains how the Trump campaign impacts the debate about the pros and cons of telephone vs. online polls.
NYT conservative columnist Russ Douthat concedes “Whether or not we want to call Trump a fascist outright, then, it seems fair to say that he’s closer to the “proto-fascist” zone on the political spectrum than either the average American conservative or his recent predecessors in right-wing populism…Trump may indeed be a little fascistic, but that sinister resemblance is just one part of his reality-television meets WWE-heel-turn campaign style. He isn’t actually building a fascist mass movement (he hasn’t won a primary yet!) or rallying a movement of far-right intellectuals (Ann Coulter notwithstanding). His suggestion that a Black Lives Matter protester at one of his rallies might have deserved to be roughed up was pretty ugly, but still several degrees of ugly away from the actual fascist move, which would require organizing a paramilitary force to take to the streets to brawl with the decadent supporters of our rotten legislative government.” Scant comfort, that.
The Fix’s Chris Cillizza sheds what was left of his already diaphanous nonpartisan veil to offer this advice directly to Bush III and Right to Rise, his Super-PAC: “Take all of the ad time Right to Rise has reserved in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and turn the firehose on full blast against Trump. I am talking about a sustained ad campaign whose sole aim is to disqualify Trump — not boost Bush. Sure, Bush and Right to Rise have jabbed at Trump — and a John Kasich super PAC has gone into full attack mode against The Donald — but no one other than the Bush forces have the money to maintain a sustained negative ad campaign against Trump in, at least, the first three voting states…Bush — and the broader establishment that he represents — needs to understand that these are desperate times for them. Standing on the sidelines is no longer a viable option. Waiting for someone else to do it won’t work. Someone needs to step up and try to take Trump out if, indeed, the establishment believes that The Donald as the party’s nominee is a catastrophic situation…No one is better positioned — or has less to lose — than Bush and Right to Rise. It’s time to take a chance.”
Washington Post op-ed columnist Harold Meyerson has some simpler advice for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton to help build unity among Democratic progressives: “She should say that if elected president, she’d subject the Wall Streeters to a higher tax rate than anyone else.”
Crystal Ball’s Larry J. Sabato and Kyle Kondik provide some insight into calendar considerations for any independent candidacy bid by Donald Trump, or anyone else: “The calendar will help to determine whether there’s a truly prominent third-party candidate on the ballot. Filing deadlines for independent presidential candidates vary by state, but a majority fall in August. That is after the conventions — 38 states’ deadlines are after the RNC ends on July 21 — but not so far after them that a spurned candidate could easily turn around and get on many state ballots. A candidate who wants to get on every ballot will have to start much earlier than that: For instance, the deadline for an independent to get on the ballot in Texas, the second-biggest state, is May 9. So maybe it would be helpful to the Republicans if Trump hangs around in the primary — so long as he doesn’t win the nomination — just long enough for a national third-party bid to be out of reach.”