Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) plans to run for president as a Democrat, becoming the only official party challenger so far to Hillary Clinton. Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb have talked about running and taken certain steps towards a campaign, but neither has officially entered the race.
“According to people familiar with the senator’s plans, he will release a statement on Thursday and make a more formal announcement of candidacy later next month in Vermont. That event will likely take place at City Hall in Burlington, where he was mayor.”
Well, this will keep Hillary honest and cement her feet on the left. She has begun her campaign on the left, sounding much like Elizabeth Warren. Sander’s entry ensures she stays there. I just have one problem with Bernie Sanders. You are running for President as a Democrat. So fucking become a Democrat. Change your party registration this very instant. He won’t because that is part of his brand as a fiercely independent socialist. Yes, Republicans, he is an actual socialist, and when you call him one, you won’t be lying like you normally do.
IOWA–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY–PPP: Walker 23, Rubio 13, Bush 12, Huckabee 10, Paul 10, Cruz 8, Carson 7, Christie 5, Perry 4
IOWA–PRESIDENT–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY–PPP: Clinton 62, Sanders 14, O’Malley 6, Webb 3, Chafee 2.
FiveThirtyEight: “But money is unlikely to be Bush’s problem in this campaign, and cash may be a less valuable resource than another sort of currency in which he is lacking: the support of influential Republicans, like current senators and governors, especially those who publicly endorse a candidate. Historically, these endorsements have been the best proxy for support in the ‘invisible primary’ and a leading indicator for which candidates may emerge victorious through the rough-and-tumble nomination race.”
“So far, Bush has won very few endorsements. No current Republican senators or governors have endorsed him, and only five members of the House of Representatives have done so, all from his home state of Florida.”
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in case that will ultimately decide whether states barring same-sex marriage are violating a right for gay couples. The Justices questioned whether they should require all 50 states to recognize same-sex unions or allow state political processes to decide on a piecemeal basis. Court watchers were focused intently on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was seen going into the case as the most crucial vote to the outcome. John Becker at the Bilerco Project is cautiously optimistic, as am I:
Justices Scalia and Alito appeared to side with the states. Thomas, as usual, remained silent but is considered a safe vote against marriage equality. The questions asked by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan seemed to indicate that they will vote in favor of same-sex marriage rights. But the leanings of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts were more difficult to determine.
Kennedy, author of the Court’s three landmark gay-rights decisions (Romer in 1996, Lawrence in 2003, and Windsor in 2013), initially expressed concern about the Court deciding that “we know better” than a definition of marriage that “has been with us for millennia.” But he then pointed out that the amount of time between Brown v. Board (1954) — which struck down state-sponsored school segregation — and Loving v. Virginia (1967) — which invalidated laws banning interracial marriage — was approximately the same as the interval between the 2003 Lawrence decision striking down sodomy laws and the current cases before the justices. The implication was that the Court likes to move gradually when advancing civil rights, but that now may be an appropriate time to move forward. Kennedy also said that same-sex relationships have dignity and can have a “noble purpose.”
Chief Justice Roberts told attorney Mary Bonauto that the plaintiffs aren’t seeking to join the institution of marriage, but rather to fundamentally change it, and fretted that ruling for marriage equality would short-circuit an important and ongoing public discussion. But later on, he seemed uncomfortable with states refusing to recognize other states’ marriages and wondered whether marriage discrimination should be more properly understood to be discrimination on the basis of sex.
This ambiguity has led court-watchers to predict widely varied outcomes. BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner predicts a 5-4 win for marriage equality with Roberts as a possible sixth vote; Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate sounded decidedly less optimistic. SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe wrote that “it could turn out to be a nailbiter,” while analysts at the Huffington Post said they thought the Court was not debating if marriage equality should come to America, but how.
From where I sat — which, incidentally, was in an office adjacent to the courtroom where I couldn’t see the justices but could hear the arguments (and I could tweet! Check it out.) — I’m cautiously optimistic and inclined to agree with those predicting a 5-4 decision in favor of the freedom to marry. Kennedy played his cards close to his chest, but his sympathies seemed to tip in the direction of equality (and his previous opinions make it difficult to believe he’d reverse course here).
It is going to be a 6-3 ruling, with the legacy-conscious Chief Justice Roberts deciding not to become another Chief Justice Taney. Look it up.
So how is that African American voter outreach going, Rand Paul?
Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) weighed in on the turmoil in Baltimore on Tuesday, standing with police and blaming the violence on a lack of morals in America. “I came through the train on Baltimore (sic) last night, I’m glad the train didn’t stop,” he said, laughing, during an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.
Yeah, don’t ever stop fucking yourself, Son of Racist Ron.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Hillary Clinton will call for far-reaching reforms in the criminal justice system that would “end the era of mass incarceration,”
“The speech will mark the unveiling of Clinton’s first major policy proposal as a presidential hopeful, coming as candidates are under pressure to confront the unrest in Baltimore. The city erupted in rioting Monday night, following the funeral of Freddie Gray, an African American man who was mortally injured while in police custody.”
Man, this Hillary campaign is really trying to win me over big time (and she is succeeding).
Politico: “If elected, Hillary Clinton would make history as the first woman to occupy the Oval Office. There is, however, another historical precedent she might set. If Clinton wins the presidency, and the Republicans retain the Senate and the House of Representatives, it will be the first time in the history of the Democratic party—going back 188 years—that a Democrat will be elected president with the opposition party controlling both chambers of congress. Only three times in the history of the office has a newly-elected president been faced with the opposition party controlling both houses—Zachary Taylor in 1848, Richard Nixon in 1968 and George H. W. Bush in 1988.”
It won’t happen though. If Hillary wins, it will also mean that the Dems will win the Senate, because all of the competitive seats are in blue states that Hillary will win. The Republican Senators won in those blue states in 2010 due to low turnout. High presidential turnout will bounce them all.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds a majority of Republicans would attend the same-sex wedding of a loved one, highlighting the political risks for Republican presidential candidates who stake out positions against gay marriage.
“The poll showed 56% of Republicans would attend the gay wedding of a loved one if invited. That compares with 80% of Democrats and 70% of independents, who said they would go. Overall, 68% of Americans would attend, the poll showed, while 19% would not and 13% were unsure.”
But that 44% of the party are vile bigots who control everything and they vote. They will demand absolute loyalty from their presidential candidates.
