Thursday Open Thread [2.11.16]

NATIONAL—The Oklahoman–Clinton 44, Sanders 28
NATIONAL—The Oklahoman–Trump 30, Cruz 25, Rubio 21, Carson 6, Bush 5, Kasich 3

The City of Cleveland has filed suit against Tamir Rice’s family for $500 fucking dollars for unpaid EMS services, that being the ambulance ride that took their son to hospital after the City of Cleveland’s police officers murdered him in cold blood. Attention City of Cleveland, shove that bill directly up your ass.

The Huffington Post says President Obama has all but endorsed Hillary Clinton: “Clinton and Sanders have sparred in Democratic debates over who is the true ‘progressive,’ with Clinton arguing that progressivism is about results, and Sanders arguing that it’s about principle. Obama, who appointed Clinton his first secretary of state after defeating her in the 2008 Democratic primary, seemed on Wednesday to clearly fall on the Clinton side of the ideological divide. He said that labels, such as ‘not a real progressive’ — which Sanders has used against Clinton — are damaging to the national discourse.”

Said Obama: “So when I hear voices in either party boast of their refusal to compromise as an accomplishment in and of itself, I’m not impressed. All that does is prevent what most Americans would consider actual accomplishments, like fixing roads, educating kids, passing budgets, cleaning our environment, making our streets safe … It cuts both ways, guys.”

I think he should endorse explicitly. If Sanders is the nominee, all his work will be destroyed, whether Sanders wins or, more likely, loses.

Obamacare keeps succeeding, much to the chagrin of Republicans:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Eight states saw a significant drop last year in the number of residents going without health insurance, according to a government report out Tuesday that has implications for the presidential campaign.

Politically, the eight states with statistically significant coverage gains in the National Health Interview Survey are a mix of red, blue and purple. They are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York. Five have GOP governors. […]

In addition to the eight states with statistically significant coverage gains, the report named another 10 with notable reductions in the percentage of uninsured residents. However, the changes in these states did not meet the survey’s test for statistical significance.

That second group included Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. Seven of those states have Republican governors.

As Kevin Drum notes, another Republican talking point against Obamacare has spectacularly failed to come true—employers haven’t dropped coverage on millions of people. In fact, “total private coverage increased by more than 16 million through the middle of 2015. […] After four years of private coverage hovering around 61 percent of the population, it jumped up to 66 percent within the space of a single year.”

Isaac Fomarola on why Millenials should reconsider Hillary Clinton:

To borrow the argument structure of pro-Bernie feminism (“a woman, just not this woman”), consider it possible to want a revolution, just not this revolution. [W]hy would it make any sense to cast your vote for a candidate that is decidedly less progressive? This is perhaps the most valid and difficult question of the 2016 Democratic Primary. Here are a few of my best guesses:

The repercussions for many Americans in the event that we nominate Sanders and he loses are much greater for some than for others.

I do believe it’s important to acknowledge that the fear that Sanders might not beat Cruz or Rubio is a very real fear, and that fear is substantiated by far more than Bernie’s eccentrics or his religion (or lack thereof). It is much easier to vote for the candidate that most closely upholds your values when his likely loss in a general election wouldn’t have palpable repercussions for you. Cruz is a disaster when it comes to women’s issues, and Rubio has already threatened/promised to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would work to overturn same-sex marriage. We barely have to discuss the dreadful repercussions to many Americans if Trump somehow continues the charade. Undeniable sexism in this country aside and despite Sanders’s own claims that have spurred media polls limited in scope, Clinton is a far more electable candidate, and playing it safe does matter to me: because I want access to healthcare, because I want employment rights and anti-discrimination laws upheld, because I want to be able to use the bathroom without paying a fine, because I don’t want my friends or their families to get deported. The consequences of losing this election are real and would have a grave effect on many. Speaking of “electability”….

The “socialist” problem is, in fact, a problem.

It’s unfair to say that politically moderate or independent voters are opposed to a self-described socialist in office because they are afraid of the word or have misconceptions about its meaning. While that may be true for some, those voters are unlikely to vote for a Democratic nominee to begin with. It’s insulting to moderate or undecided voters to assume that their opposition to socialism in the White House is a result of fear or misinformation. The real reason that many people don’t want socialism in the White House is that they aren’t socialists. Most Americans simply aren’t: a fact that seems surprising to many in my generation [and to Progressives in general]. And most Americans, myself included, want a revolution that honors and amends the principles of democracy and competitive markets. Believe it or not, there are many of us who still think that great change is possible, and that that change doesn’t require a revolution of political ideology. Most Americans, even those who want or are waiting for a real revolution, want a revolution that is both truly new and truly American. A self-described socialist who repeatedly points to other countries as superior models of fair and effective governance simply rubs me the wrong way, and I lean way further left than your average voter. I may have lost hope for a genuine and incorruptible candidate long ago, but I have not lost faith in American ingenuity, competitiveness, and resolve.

We should actively consider whether Sanders’ proposals address the root of inequality in this country.

We should consider whether an economy run on socialist principles actually addresses the issues that have led to such a devastating state of inequality. Most of Sanders’ proposals involve a huge expansion of federal regulation and control. This would require citizens to have a substantial amount of trust in a few men and women in the White House to fairly, effectively, and equitably regulate certain industries to acceptable standards. And when you’ve never been treated fairly or equitably by your government before, why should it feel comfortable to give that government a much greater degree of control? I believe in democracy and free markets because I value my right to make choices, and I value that right because my government, historically, has not. If Sanders ever got free, universal healthcare for everyone to pass, why would anyone, in the context of our history and the systemic oppression of women and people of color that was largely endorsed and perpetrated by the federal government, trust that same government to ensure that my needs are met?

If you’re a young Sanders supporter, ask yourself this: have you ever been to a public health clinic? If every doctor’s office is to be a federally regulated clinic, the reality is we will need substantially more healthcare workers and they will be paid substantially less. This is also true of free public higher education: teachers, most of whom barely make a living to begin with, will be paid substantially less, and I’ve yet to hear Sanders’ solution to that inevitability–in fact, I haven’t even heard the question posed. We should consider valuing choices more than we value having everything for free. I want it to be possible for everyone in this country to make choices. And if that isn’t the case now, which it isn’t, the problems are much more significant than amending the Affordable Care Act or lowering the costs of education. First we have to identify the problem: systemic racism and sexism. Then, we have to address it. I am not confident that making healthcare or education completely free either addresses or solves these problems.

Where I stand apart from Sanders and his supporters is with regard to what a revolution in a democracy looks like. To me, it’s about fixing deep-seated ethical and ideological problems that put marginalized populations at a fixed disadvantage in a competitive economy. I want my revolution to ensure that every American citizen can take part in our democracy and make their own choices, including demanding the best healthcare and the best education, which requires a competitive market. I don’t support Sanders’ brand of revolution because I haven’t quite given up on American potential yet. My millennial friends might call that pie-eyed and unrealistic, but bear in mind that’s the same thing everyone is saying about Sanders, and about you.

This guy speaks for me. * – though I am not in favor of privatized education.

McKay Coppins reveals Rubio to the rest of us:

To those who have known him longest, Rubio’s flustered performance Saturday night fit perfectly with an all-too-familiar strain of his personality, one that his handlers and image-makers have labored for years to keep out of public view. Though generally seen as cool-headed and quick on his feet, Rubio is known to friends, allies, and advisers for a kind of incurable anxiousness—and an occasional propensity to panic in moments of crisis, both real and imagined.

…More than age, record, or wardrobe, it is Rubio’s natural nervousness that makes him seem to so many who know him like he is swimming in his dad’s sport coat…From the moment the 2010 primary turned negative, the candidate needed a fainting couch every time an attack was lobbed his way, his aides recalled to me.…When a state senator who was backing the governor referred to Rubio as a “slick package from Miami,” he was aghast and ordered his aides to cry foul. Dog whistle! Anti-Cuban! Racist! When opponents accused Rubio of steering state funds toward Florida International University in exchange for a faculty job after he left office, he was indignant. Outrageous! Slander!

…”He just lets these little things get to him, and he worries too much,” a Miami Republican complained after spending close to an hour sitting next to Rubio on a flight as he fretted over a mildly critical process story about him in the National Journal. “I’m just like, ‘Marco, calm down.'”

Sounds like exactly the person you would want as President. Meanwhile, Josh Marshall says we probably saw the end of Marco Rubio’s career on Tuesday night.

We have another Democratic debate tonight. It is being held at the University of Wisconin-Milwaukee, starting at 9 pm EST. It will air on all local PBS stations (like WHYY), but CNN will also simulcast the debate and stream it on CNN.com. Gwenn Ifill and Judy Woodruff are moderating.

Will there be a lot of fighting?
Signs point to yes. The last Democratic debate was probably the most substantive of the 2016 race so far, with Clinton and Sanders delving into their competing visions for the party. Their matchups have also been increasingly heated, with Clinton telling Sanders last week “enough is enough. If you’ve got something to say, say it directly.”

Since then, the Democratic race has only gotten more contentious. Clinton has a small lead over Sanders in Wisconsin, and a much easier path to the nomination, but Sanders’s recent successes have exposed Clinton’s weaknesses, particularly with young people and women. Last weekend Bill Clinton tore into Sanders (without mentioning his name), and now the pair are beginning to fight for the support of minority voters, who are key to Clinton’s success.

It’s possible Hillary’s new strategy will entail killing Bernie with kindness, but with the Vermont senator stealing her momentum, it seems more likely that she’ll step up her attacks on Thursday night. Though, in a sign of how bizarre this race has become, we have to note that you’ll never hear the two Democrats hurling vulgar insults at each other.

Rush Limbaugh said that Sen. Ted Cruz is the only real choice for conservatives in the GOP presidential race. Said Limbaugh: “If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz, because you are exactly right: This is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan.”

And so it begins… Cruz will be the nominee.

Taegen Goddard says Trump is the Republican Party: “Though the other campaigns still won’t admit it, Trump represents today’s Republican party. He’s leading all national polls. He’s leading in nearly every state that votes in March. He’s the overwhelming frontrunner. Trump’s chief rival at this point is Ted Cruz, who is very close to consolidating the evangelical and social conservative vote. Cruz will attack him relentlessly in South Carolina for not being a conservative. But the so-called “establishment” candidates — John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush — will be engaged in their own bloody battle. Even if just one of them can emerge as a non-Trump alternative — something that may not be possible at this point — it’s not clear their share of the vote would even be big enough to take on Trump.

David A. Hopkins‘ thoughts on what New Hampshire taught us:

3. Trump continues to be a polarizing figure within the party, with significant proportions of Republicans voicing a dislike for him or reluctance to support him if he were to be the nominee. Yet Cruz and Bush also face resistance from a substantial fraction of Republican voters, and less than half of New Hampshire Republicans told exit pollsters that they would feel satisfied with a Rubio nomination. At the moment, none of the leading Republican candidates engenders broadly positive feelings within the party electorate.

4. Bernie Sanders’s bigger-than-expected victory on the Democratic side does not dislodge Hillary Clinton from her position as the heavy favorite for the nomination. Yet it does signal that Sanders will be a serious competitor, perhaps extending the nomination race far into the spring. It is likely that the Clinton campaign will retool its message—Clinton’s concession speech in New Hampshire appeared to foreshadow exactly such a development—to echo Sanders’s anti-Wall Street themes while simultaneously appealing much more directly to the major social groups within the Democratic coalition, especially racial minorities.

5. Relatedly, Clinton is also likely to hug Obama even tighter (rhetorically speaking, that is) in the coming weeks. The Sanders campaign would be wise to prepare for repeated accusations that it represents a rebuke to the policies—and even the character—of the current incumbent. A race that turns into a referendum on Obama would not be in its strategic interest.

David Bernstein:

If you are a Republican who desperately wants to prevent Donald Trump or Ted Cruz from winning the party’s nomination, New Hampshire could hardly have gone worse.

And you’ve got 10 days to straighten things out.

That’s when the South Carolina primary takes place. At this moment, that looks like a two-way race between Trump and Cruz, with a host of others sniping at each other for small shares of the leftovers.

The Republican candidate who, a week earlier, looked like he was emerging as the alternative to Trump and Cruz, collapsed to an apparent fifth-place finish. Now, instead of clearing out the rest of the field, Marco Rubio is just somebody with third- and fifth-place finishes.

In doing so, Rubio breathed just enough life into Jeb Bush’s moribund campaign to justify going forward. But just barely. Bush has almost precisely matched the Iowa and New Hampshire showings of Rudy Giuliani in 2008, a campaign viewed as one of the worst failures of modern politics. (Giuliani finished 3rd with 3% and 4th with 9%; Bush was 3rd with 3% and appears to be 4th with 11%.)

Both finished below Ted Cruz in New Hampshire, pending the final votes to be tallied, an embarrassment that bodes ill for them heading toward Cruz’s natural home base in the South, which picks one-third of GOP delegates.

At least Rubio and Bush, conservatives from Florida with significant endorsements and financial backing, can theoretically compete in the South. It’s much harder to imagine John Kasich doing so.

Pat Garofolo:

Politics isn’t all about joining hands and singing Kumbayah, of course. The 2008 primary between Clinton and then-Sen. Barack Obama got pretty nasty, and yet Clinton Democrats still turned out for Obama, earlier protestations notwithstanding. Though there’s always the possibility of long-standing animosity being an issue in November, I still feel, as I wrote after Iowa, that a long primary is good for the Democrats; it was nice to see Sanders nodding in the direction of a united front already.

So perhaps the bigger and better question is where does this result leave the Democratic Party? Sanders, if nothing else, has shown the appetite for an unabashedly, unashamedly liberal line in the party, one that isn’t content with half measures, triangulation or a third way. Even if Clinton ultimately wins the day, she will do so at the helm of a party that doesn’t look a whole lot like the one the last Clinton president led, thanks in no small part to Sanders’ efforts, even if he only tapped into a vein of thought and feeling that was there all along.

It may be then, to tweak the cliche a little bit, that Sanders ultimately loses the battles and surrenders, and yet still wins the war. Vive la revolution.

Alex Eisenstadt:

For the establishment wing of the Republican Party, the picture just keeps getting bleaker.

Far from winnowing the crowded field of mainstream GOP contenders and allowing it to unify around a standard-bearer, New Hampshire thrust it further into chaos. Marco Rubio, after taking steps last week to coalesce the backing of the party’s upper echelons, saw his momentum halted in the state, which punished him for delivering an overly scripted debate performance.

The establishment picture is now more clouded than ever, with Rubio, Jeb Bush, and New Hampshire runner-up John Kasich heading for a brutal fight in South Carolina – a state known for its rough-and-tumble political culture. Chris Christie, who was also competing for establishment support, is reassessing his campaign’s future.

All of this, many in the mainstream wing of the GOP worry, is excellent news for one man: Donald Trump.

Dana Millbank thinks that Jeb! might just be….

“Only in the bizarre world of politics would Bush’s fourth-place finish in New Hampshire be considered good news: His millions of dollars got him only 31,160 votes, or 11 percent of the total. But considering that Bush was ready for embalming before Tuesday night, the notion that Jeb is not dead is noteworthy. At the very least, he lives to be awkward another day.”

“This turnabout may say less about Bush than about the tragic state of the Republican mainstream as it tries to find an alternative to Trump and Ted Cruz. Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina are out of the race. Marco Rubio’s debate debacle left him with a Rick Perry problem of looking like a lightweight. John Kasich scored well in New Hampshire but will have trouble convincing Republicans elsewhere that he’s conservative enough. That leaves – could it be? – Jeb.”

Dirty tricks in the Republican South Carolina Primary are the stuff of legend. Now, the Charleston Post and Courier introduced a digital tool that asks readers to help keep tabs on the coming wave of dirty tricks.

Politico: “This is a state famous for telephone pollsters implying John McCain had an illegitimate child, and the bogus Mitt Romney Christmas card with controversial quotes from the Book of Mormon. Fliers dropped on South Carolina doorsteps have told people the wrong date to vote; this is where political rivals have bantered openly with racial slurs and innuendo about sexual trysts.”

Bloomberg: “Republican elites are 0-for-2 in presidential nominating contests this year, a rare and panic-inducing outcome for the party’s leadership. Yet their preferred candidates continue to fight each other, and have begun the march to the next battlefield in South Carolina without a plan to stop Donald Trump.”

“Not only did the billionaire’s 20-point blowout in the New Hampshire primary fail to cull the field enough to present a clear mainstream alternative, the three remaining establishment candidates—U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor—spent Wednesday going after one another, as they have throughout the nomination fight.”

“The best hope of the Republican establishment just a week ago, Marco Rubio suddenly faces a path to his party’s presidential nomination that could require a brokered national convention,” the AP reports.

“That’s according to Rubio’s campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, who told The Associated Press that this week’s disappointing performance in New Hampshire will extend the Republican nomination fight for another three months, if not longer. It’s a worst-case scenario for Rubio and many Republican officials alike who hoped to avoid a prolonged and painful nomination fight in 2016.”

Said Sullivan: “We very easily could be looking at May — or the convention. I would be surprised if it’s not May or the convention.”