Sunday Open Thread [12.27.2015]

NATIONAL—CNN/ORC: Clinton 50, Sanders 34, O’Malley 3
IOWA—Gravis: Clinton 49, Sanders 31, O’Malley 10
NEW HAMPSHIRE–ARG: Clinton 46, Sanders 43, O’Malley 3

NATIONAL—CNN/ORC: Trump 39, Cruz 18, Rubio 10, Carson 10, Christie 5, Paul 4, Bush 3, Kasich 2, Huckabee 2, Fiorina 1
NATIONAL—Reuters: Trump 37, Carson 11, Cruz 11, Rubio 8, Bush 7.
IOWA—Gravis: Cruz 31, Trump 31, Rubio 9, Carson 7, Bush 4, Huckabee 4, Fiorina 3, Christie 2, Kasich 2, Pataki 1, Paul 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE–ARG: Trump 21, Rubio 15, Kasich 13, Christie 12, Cruz 10, Bush 7, Carson 6, Fiorina 5, Paul 4

Peter Beinart says a new Liberal era is beginning? Beginning? It already begun. Back in 2006.

“That doesn’t mean the Republicans won’t retain strength in the nation’s statehouses and in Congress. It doesn’t mean a Republican won’t sooner or later claim the White House. It means that on domestic policy—foreign policy is following a different trajectory, as it often does—the terms of the national debate will continue tilting to the left. The next Democratic president will be more liberal than Barack Obama. The next Republican president will be more liberal than George W. Bush.”

“In the late ’60s and ’70s, amid left-wing militancy and racial strife, a liberal era ended. Today, amid left-wing militancy and racial strife, a liberal era is only just beginning.”

Politico says it is not just Trump:

“After five Republican debates, most Americans know about Donald Trump’s provocative beliefs, like his desires to end birthright citizenship, stop Muslim immigration and kill families of suspected terrorists. Much less attention has been paid to Carly Fiorina’s conclusion that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, Mike Huckabee’s pledge to defy Supreme Court rulings he deems incompatible with God’s law, Rick Santorum’s claim that Islam is not protected by the First Amendment or Chris Christie’s threat to shoot down Russian planes and launch cyberattacks on Chinese leaders.”

“Those provocative beliefs, believe it or not, were also expressed during the five Republican debates. They were just overshadowed by the furor over Trump.”

George Will, panicked conservative, on the person mesmerizing close to half of the GOP base:

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.[…]

In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would also mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics […]

One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

Mike Huckabee said if he doesn’t finish in the top three in Iowa, he’ll end his campaign, Politico reports.

Said Huckabee: “If we can’t come within striking distance of the victory or win it, then I think we recognize that it’s going to be hard to take that onto the other states.”

Given that he is currently 5th or 6th, and given that the most likely order of finish is Cruz, Trump, Carson, it is likely that this is curtains for the Huckster.

Jack Shafer asks what happens if no one believes the fact checkers?

“It would stand to reason that the documentation of Trump’s lies… would hobble his candidacy. Yet it appears to have had little to no effect. What to conclude from this? Perhaps … Trump supporters don’t know about the fact-checker’s findings, which seems wildly unlikely given the saturation coverage his lies have enjoyed. My guess is that Trump supporters don’t believe and just don’t care what the fact checkers say.”

First Read notes that “according to the normal rules of politics, millions of dollars in positive TV ads — especially before the airwaves get saturated — are supposed to help your poll numbers. But that hasn’t been the case for Jeb Bush. Per our SMG Delta data, Bush and his allies have spent a whopping $38 million in ads since September, more than the twice as much as the nearest competition. Yet Bush’s numbers have only declined — he’s at just 3% in the new CNN poll, and our December NBC/WSJ poll found 48% of Republican voters saying they COULDN’T see themselves supporting him (versus 32% who said this back in March).”

Rick Klein: “Another poll with Trump on top? That’s not a surprise anymore. But widen the lens of this race and the year is ending in some unexpected ways, even without vulgar nouns turning into verbs. First, Donald Trump still hasn’t substantially tapped his fortune for TV ads, not with his free-media campaign succeeding the way it is. Second, he’s barely getting attacked by his main rivals anymore. Jeb Bush’s and John Kasich’s super PACs are knocking him hard, but their numbers are headed more toward Graham territory than Trump.”

“Meanwhile, Marco Rubio is being attacked by Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie, to make no mention of Trump’s occasional jabs. Rubio is spending most of his time hitting Cruz, in the developing battle for Iowa, amid Ben Carson’s fade. The banking-on-New Hampshire crowd of Bush, Kasich, and Christie are tangling with each other. And now, of course, Trump’s biggest fight isn’t with any Republican: It’s with Hillary Clinton.”

Greg Sargent:

President Obama, in an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, made the preposterously, cockeyedly optimistic prediction that Republican opposition to the global climate deal — and to action on climate change more generally — might fade over time. As crazy as it sounds, he might prove right on this one.

In the interview, Obama acknowledged that the Republican Party “right now” is resistant to the Paris climate deal, but suggested that he’s “confident” that this could fade if progress can be made on his Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon emissions and will be pivotal to the U.S.’s ability to meet its commitments as part of the deal.

Jonathan Chait on the success of Obamacare:

Two years ago this time, conservatives were giddily predicting that Obamacare would collapse, “a failure of the administrative state on a level unimagined even by its staunchest critics,” a failure “so catastrophic that vulnerable Democratic Senators and even President Obama could come to view repeal as the face-saving option.” Over time, they have retreated slowly, never conceding that Obamacare is working as designed, and trying to make use of whatever bits of gloomy news can be found. Ross Douthat’s Sunday column, as it so often does, offers the least unreasonable iteration of the deranged state of conservative thinking on Obamacare. While no longer collapsing spectacularly, Obamacare is now sadly limping along in disappointing fashion, remaining just healthy enough not to expire. […]

… Sign-ups on the exchanges in advance of the 2016 deadline have accelerated over last year’s rate, up 29 percent; the unexpected spike in sign-ups drove hospital stocks higher this week.[…]

When Obamacare started, health-care premiums came in far, far lower than expected. As Jonathan Cohn explains, they have floated back up to correct for the initial error, but still remain lower than forecast. And as Cohn also explains, United Healthcare is just one relatively small player in the exchange markets. Provider interest overall has risen, not fallen, as Cohn point out: “Meanwhile, the average number of companies selling insurance on the marketplaces in each state rose from eight in 2014 to nine this year, and will be 10 next year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.” Exchange sign-ups among young customers have doubled this year over last, making Douthat’s projection of sicker, more expensive risk pools look highly far-fetched.[…]

Obamacare’s drafters could not draw up a blue-sky plan as though they were free to design the system anew. They had to work around an entrenched reality, making the system more humane and efficient without unduly burdening those who feared change. That they managed to pass and implement such a reform in the face of hysterical opposition is a historic triumph, one with which the opposition, five-and-a-half years later, has not come to grips.