This morning while waiting for my flight with some colleagues, they wondered, noting Trump’s most recent victory in Nevada, whether Republicans were stupid to think Trump can fix their problems.

I responded that the economy, while growing again, has not widely distributed recent growth. Voters feel a tangible economic uncertainty. Our constitutional strutute of checks and balances limits the ability of government to act lacking consensus.  Currently the Republican Party   obstructs any initiative for the President preferring to wait until the next election.  While this is legal and within the self interest of the Party, it means very little gets done.  This works against both the Obama Adminstration (seen as ineffective)  and now the “establishment.”  Trump taps into insecurity and anger.  He’s not likely to succeed any better than the hated establishment, but can you blame voters for giving him a chance?

A short trial in blogging quickly by phone.

 

 

 

A big win for Hillary in Nevada. At this time with 87 percent counted, it’s 52.5 to 47.4.  This was a chance for Bernie to win in a diverse state.  Coming up short will blunt his significant momentum.  I’m not sure there is future primary day where he get his momentum back.

The biggest news out of South Carolina is Jeb! dropping out. This should help Rubio, more in terms of money, experienced staff, and potential endorsements, rather than actual voters, because Jeb didn’t have many voters.

Trump’s win cements what was already looking like a three way race with Trump, Rubio, and Cruz.  I place their respective likelihood of obtaining the nomination in that order.  I’m sure others like Nate Silver will have more sophisticated thoughts about how the three way race may go.  Kasich and Carson haven’t dropped out yet, but they seem like walking dead to me.

 

I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot but only now have gotten around to posting.  I think Clinton is a significantly better general election candidate than Sanders.  In a nutshell, Hillary’s numbers are unlikely to deteriorate, while Bernie’s could fall substantially.

Clinton is well known to the entire electorate based on 24 years of national prominence.  She has her supporters and her detractors. Although her favorability is not great, I think all of her negatives are priced in.  This is not the case with Sen. Sanders.  Other than political junkies or Vermonters, Bernie has only become widely known in the last few months.  I think he is an attack ad waiting to happen.  According to a recent WSJ/NBC news poll, favorable/unfavorable numbers are as follows:”

Obama 49-47, Clinton 37-50, Sanders 42-35

So what will these numbers look like after Republican attack ads commence?  A commenter at TPM wrote “I think the Republicans have a potentially brutal pre-scripted attack in the general election on him: divorced, atheist, socialist white guy from a small liberal state, and the oldest person ever to run for the office. Red-baiting, with all of its unsavory and anti-semitic implications, may rear its ugly head.”

Having watched John Kerry and Michael Dukakis see their popularity plummet in the face of attacks, I fear Bernie could fall quite a bit.  It’s not just the ugly sentiments quoted above; it will be about how his policy proposals can be put into thirty second commercials which show what Americans what they would lose if Bernie prevails.  Specifically, while single payer health care makes sense if starting from scratch, it would be an enormous change compared to our largely employer-based system now bolstered by Obamacare exchanges and subsidies.  Employer-based care works well for most Americans most of the time.  The attack adds will stress that under Berniecare you can’t choose your plan, you get the government plan.  Though I understand that the government plan would look a lot like Medicare (which is fine), the ads will leave many voters very concerned about losing choice and coverage. Change is difficult.  The fight for, and since enactment of, Obamacare demonstrates this.  There is a lot of research that voters worry about loss of specific benefits (such as the right to choose their plan) than more generalized gains (better overall health care coverage throughout the nation).  The anti Berniecare ads will be devastating.

The wild card here is whether Hillary’s email scandal will get worse and bring her numbers down beyond where they are now. This is an area I am still researching, but my current thinking is that it will not get worse and is currently priced into her numbers.  Two writers that I respect, Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum believe the story is largely bogus in terms of actual threat to national security/ likelihood of an indictment.  (Note: I think even they would concede it has not been handled well and reinforces views that Clinton is secretive and acts a bit entitled).  In a nutshell, all the talk about “sharing classified material” is really a fight between the FBI and State Department determining ,after the fact, whether information is in fact classified.  Recently in my professional life related to refugee policy, my staff received an email from the state department.  The very bottom of the email said “This Email is Unclassified.”  I believe most of the controversy is whether these “unclassified” designations were subsequently changed after Hillary received or sent such an email.  To the extend this has happened, it impacts Colin Powell as well. The following is from Politico, and it lends more credence to the idea that the email scandal is overblown:

Even more than a primary opponent, Emailgate would never fight fair. With no one understanding the State Department’s two different, totally separate email systems—the normal, unprotected (whether using the State Department’s server or Hillary’s home server) one relying on unprotected BlackBerries and desktops to which anyone could and did send any material at any time and the hard-to-access, rarely used, laptop accessible-only protected one that would stamp emails “Classified”—Emailgate could assume whatever size and grotesque features a journalist or Republican chose to ascribe to it. Absent a real primary contest to draw some attention and with Clinton alone in the public eye, Emailgate threatened to appear and undermine every Clinton rally, interview and media hit as her campaign went on.

Embedded in the paragraph is the totally sensible idea that most government email is not classified and not particularly secure.  For classified information, there is a special “laptop accessible-only protected” system.  Like I said, I’m still researching Hillary’s exposure on this issue, but for now I think it’s minimal. I will update on this issue as I learn more.  BTW, I don’t usually read Politico, but the above piece makes an interesting argument about how Bernie’s campaign is just strong enough to make Hillary a better candidate without any real risk to deposing her for the nomination.  I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but worth a read:

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/new-hampshire-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-213613#ixzz3zzkyO6Yz

 

Mrs. Center Left asked me two questions yesterday.  First, what would have happened if the Scalia vacancy occurred early last year, with almost two years remaining in Obama’s tenure as President? With more time to ponder and read about potential nominees, I think the most likely outcome would have been the confirmation of a centrist compromise nominee.  Slightly less likely would have been the identical obstruction by the newly installed Republican majority on the heels of their 9 seat pick-up in the 2014 election.  I think the former is most likely, but to paraphrase what Yoda said regarding a Senate a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, “the dark side clouds everything, impossible to see.”

Mrs. Center Left’s second question is thought provoking: How would voters view Hillary if she were a man in this election?

It’s impossible to answer. Hillary’s place in today’s campaign is too much defined by her gender.  Her time as First Lady was instrumental to the launch of her political career in the Senate and her later service as Secretary of State.  All that said, if she were a man, I believe the political world would cut her much more slack.  A man with 8 years in the Senate and 4 years as SOS  would be considered even more qualified by much of the electorate.  As a female candidate, Hillary faces the balancing act of appearing strong without going over the edge into “bitchy.”  As others have also observed, President Obama faces a similar burden in avoiding the demeanor of an “angry black man.”  (I’m not implying that Obama is anything less than genuine in his cool and careful manner.  It’s his nature and works well for him politically most of the time.)  White male candidates face much less scrutiny in terms of their demeanor.  Just look at Trump.

BTW, Mrs. Center Left is politically liberal but not particularly interested in the strategy issues related to electoral politics. She is much more interested in how people think, believe, and feel in our complex society.

 

 

Over at the Daily Intelligencer, Chas Danner has a nice run down of all the different aspects of the fight over Scalia’s successor.  Worth reading in its entirety as it sums up views from others including David Frum, Ezra Klein, and Mark Joseph Stern.  Link:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/gops-plan-to-replace-scalia-may-backfire.html#jumpLink

In more thoughtful ways, Frum and Stern expand on the political, and at least short-term policy, price Republicans are likely to pay for obstruction (losing some cases 4-4, and motivating the Democrat base).  Ezra Klein raises the issue of stress on our constitutional democracy from divided government when in the final year of a Presidential term there is a court vacancy.  Separately, Josh Marshall agrees there are downsides for McConnell to  state bluntly that there will be no vote on an Obama nominee, but that it’s part of a larger trend of normalizing new maximalist political behaviors by conservatives.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/playthings

All of the above strengthens my belief that when (not if) the Republicans block an Obama nominee, there will be a modest but real price to pay in the upcoming election.

 

 

 

 

First condolences to his family and friends.  Though I usually disagreed with his reasoning, Scalia was a brilliant man who cared deeply about policy and this country.  Josh Marshall has a few good pieces about Scalia and does a better job than I of recognizing his importance.

In terms of politics, I think Scalia’s vacancy on the court provides several advantages for progressives. First, until a successor is confirmed, there is one less very conservative vote on a divided SCOTUS.  A 4-4 decision means the lower court ruling stands.  The short term impact will depend a lot on how those lower court decisions are framed, and I’ll be looking for a good summary of that.

Second, the vacancy elevates the importance of the Supreme Court and the power of the President to appoint the federal judiciary, subject to Senate confirmation, in terms of the 2016 campaign.  I think this helps the Democrats because some voters take the view that there is no difference between the two parties.  Some very liberal voters felt this way in 2000 and voted for Nader.  You could see the same thing happening again if Bernie loses the nomination, and some of his supporters decide there is no real difference between Hillary and the Republican nominee.  I think this type of defection is very small, but could matter in a close election. The elevated SCOTUS issue mitigates this problem.

Third, this vacancy gives President Obama an opportunity to put forward an outstanding nominee.  While I expect Republicans in the Senate to push back, the Republicans will pay a small political price for this obstruction. Generally, there is little political downside to Congressional obfuscation, but refusing to act at all looks irresponsible and petty.  Not a huge impact, but a small positive for the Democrats.

Finally, if Obama nominates a highly qualified woman or racial minority, the refusal to confirm, or worse yet, the refusal to even hold hearings, might deeply motivate key elements of the Democratic base.

None of the political impacts noted above are large, but in a close election they could matter. While the magnitude is small, the vector of this issue is in the Democrats’ favor.

 

 

I think Josh Marshall and Nate Silver each have similar excellent and more detailed takes on the Republican race. In a nutshell, last night was perfect for Trump.  His vote share was a solid 35 percent, nearly 20 points greater than 2nd place Kasich, and better than factional past candidates such as Buchanan. But more importantly, there is little sign of consolidation in the establishment lane holding Christie, Rubio, Bush, and Kasich.  I think Christie will drop out soon.  Eventually, there will be further consolidation and I don’t have clue as to which of those three it might be.  (I take that no clue back, reading that list, my gut says it’s Bush, but who knows.) But in the meantime Trump and Cruz are well positioned to win pluralities and rack up delegates.  I think there is a real chance that there is no clear winner heading into the convention.  That said, Trump winning the nomination prior to summer is more likely than a contested convention.

On the Dem. side, I will just say that Clinton’s nomination is not inevitable.  I still expect her to prevail, but Sanders’ strength with voters under 45 is impressive.  I will write more later, bringing in some thoughts from Mr. Center Left, Sr. (my father who does not share my first name).

I was surprised, but not shocked, to see Cruz best Trump in Iowa. The relatively strong Rubio 3rd place finish was not a surprise to me–there were signs in the polling that he was moving up.  Key questions going forward.

1. How does Trump respond after becoming a dreaded “loser?”  Can he rebound or does his bubble pop?  Look for him to be aggressive in tonights Republican debate. I’m guessing he will rebound with a first or second place finish, but anything is possible.
2. Can Rubio continue to best the other establishment/moderate land candidates?  I think he will.
3. Can Cruz get any momentum from winning in Iowa?  So far the polling shows no momentum, but he over performed his polls in Iowa.  It is remarkable that a surprise winner out of Iowa generated zero momentum.
4. Will Bush, Kasich, or Christie break into the top 3?  If one of them does, I think it’s 4 man race for at least a few more weeks.  If not, then I think it is down to the top 3 from Iowa.
5. Given the expectations of a Sander’s win in this neighboring state, what level of support does Clinton need to avoid very downbeat coverage seriously questioning her front runner status?  I’m thinking if she is within 15 percent, she avoids total embarrassment.  If she can get within single digits, she may even manage “come back kid” momentum.   Even if she loses by more than 15, I still believe Clinton can rebound and win the nomination once the race moves to more diverse states.

 

I support Hillary over Bernie.

1. She is a stronger general election candidate.  All of her negatives are priced into her favorability levels, which frankly aren’t that great, but should be sufficient to defeat her Republican opponent.  I’m much less certain about how Bernie will hold up as a newcomer in a nasty battle with the Republicans.  Bernie’s favorability ratings have a lot of room to move down when attack ads commence.
2. With the House certain to stay in Republican hands, her executive branch experience will be the key to defending the core achievements of the Obama Administration, making incremental progress in Congress, and adopting regulations.

Ezra Klein has an excellent piece entitled Hillary Clinton And The Audacity of Political Realism.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858464/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-political-realism

I very much agree with his argument that Hillary offers incremental pragmatism and why that’s the vision for today’s environment.  From Klein:

This is Hillary Clinton’s political philosophy in a nutshell. It is the hard-won lessons of a politician who had a front-row seat to both Bill Clinton’s impeachment and Barack Obama’s release of his longform birth certificate. It’s the conclusion of someone who has tried to win change amidst Democratic and Republican Congresses, who has worked out of the White House and out of the Capitol, who has watched disagreement and polarization prove intractable, who has seen grand plans die amidst gridlock.

Clinton’s theory of change is probably analytically correct, and it’s well-suited to a world in which Republicans will almost certainly continue to control the House, and so a Democratic president will have to grind out victories of compromise in Congress and of bureaucratic mastery through executive action.

Klein contrasts this with Bernie’s views:

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders’s visions of politics is simple, and it is stark. Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe you can change hearts. Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe you need to change hearts.

In Sanders’s view, there’s something akin to a populist silent majority lurking in America — a majority that already agrees with liberals but that’s been alienated by Democrats who give in to wealthy interests and compromise their principles.

I’m extremely skeptical of Bernie’s “silent majority of liberals.”  I’m equally skeptical of how he will achieve “political revolution” to get his program enacted despite a Republican Congress.  Klein also has good links to pieces by Paul Krugman and Jonathan Chait.

Bottom line, Hillary’s skills and vision are a better fit for this time.  Moreover, because she is battle tested, she is a stronger general election candidate. Electing a Democratic President is critical for maintaining current law and policy against a Republican Congress and for controlling appointments to the federal judiciary.

All of the above was on my mind today before this evening’s debate and separate Trump event.  I only caught a bit of the opening during my drive home and some of the end.  I agree with Josh Marshall’s piece today arguing that Trump’s decision to skip the debate is risky, but may pay off in once again demonstrating to his supporters that he is a winner and that he sets the rules.  We’ll know more on Monday.

 

 

In a nutshell, I think Trump is a better general election candidate for the Republicans than Cruz.

Trump.  He is a buffoon, an insensitive jerk, a showman, but ideologically flexible.  He has a good sense of what downscale (non college-educated) white Republican voters want to hear.  He appears to have mastered twitter (I don’t even have an account.)  Like Palin, he appeals to voters who feel aggrieved (perhaps a future post about the aggrieved).  If he were to become the Republican nominee, his goal would be to win.  Being a winner is big part of his schtick, appealing to losers by saying they can win with him.  (An interesting question is how he will keep that argument going if he finishes 2nd in Iowa, but that is a separate issue.) Upon winning the nomination, he can change his message and move toward the center, certainly more so than Cruz.  He would have some cross over appeal in a general election to the relatively small set of downscale whites who still vote for Democrats at the federal level.  All that said, Trump would be a weak Republican nominee.  He has done his best to offend every element of the Obama coalition of minorities and college-educated whites.  That coalition, barring an economic downturn, should best Trump.  Although certainly no more than a 30 percent probability, I can imagine Trump winning the general election. I cannot imagine the same for Cruz.

Cruz.  Cruz would be an even worse nominee for the Republicans.  He is an Ivy League educated ideologue.  He cares much more about being faithful to his conservative principles than being loved or liked by voters or colleagues.  (As many others have documented, he is despised by his follow Republican senators.)  His hardline conservative positions are indelible.  He would have little ability, and absolutely zero interest, in tacking toward the middle for purposes of winning the general election.  Put another way, he would prefer losing to compromising his principles.  I see his ceiling in the general election at no better than 45 percent.

Trump is the exact opposite.  Winning is his only goal.  He has no principles, so compromise and message changing would come naturally.  For these reasons, Trump is the better General election candidate.  That said, Trump would be significantly weaker than any of the candidates in the “establishment” lane (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Christie).