Thursday Open Thread [3.17.16]

Amy Walter: “The south and Midwest have all pretty much weighed in at this point. Cruz didn’t do as well in the south as he should have. Kasich didn’t do as well in the Midwest as he should have. Now, it’s now time for the west and northeast to have their say. On the one hand, the blue states up in mid-April (New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania) should favor the more establishment candidacy of Kasich. In 2012, Romney easily defeated Rick Santorum in these states. However, Trump has a regional appeal that makes him uniquely positioned for these states.”

“Trump’s immigration stance will help him in Arizona on March 22, a winner take all state with 58 delegates. And, we should expect him to do well in blue-collar areas of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington state.”

“Moreover, the map isn’t all that favorable to Cruz. Not only are the northeastern states a cultural mismatch for Cruz, there are also few remaining caucuses left on the calendar. Caucuses, with their more socially conservative constituency and emphasis on grassroots organizing, have been great for the Cruz campaign. Of the 21 states that vote between now and June 7, however, only four hold caucuses.”

So Bernie Sanders now wants the Super Delegates to go against the majority of the voters and the majority of the pledged delegates and vote for him over Hillary Clinton.

Sanders campaign aides say they’ll be able to keep Clinton from reaching the 2,383 delegate magic number she’d need to clinch the nomination at the convention and, by being close enough, convince the superdelegates to switch, as some did when they changed from Clinton to Barack Obama in 2008.

“Absent Hillary getting out of the race, I think there’s no way that this race isn’t going to be very close in pledged delegates, even if we succeed,” Devine said. “The best outcome for us, given the nature of the system, is a very close advantage at the end.”

Sanders’ superdelegate pitch will likely take the shape of both direct lobbying and a more formal pitch. Sanders’ campaign will argue that voter enthusiasm and holding to the populist principles of the party are on Sanders’ side. They’ll point to their massive, low-dollar online fundraising.

Superdelegates who’ve already endorsed Sanders say they’re already in touch with their uncommitted colleagues, with plans to step up that engagement.

How amusing. How hypocritical. If Hillary did that, Berniebros and Berniegals would call for Clinton’s head, calling it corrupt and undemocratic.

Arizona—Merrill Poll–Trump 31, Cruz 19, Kasich 10
Arizona—Merrill Poll–Clinton 50, Sanders 24

The Republican plan to let Clinton choose the next Supreme Court Justice with a Democratic Senate is going better than they ever hoped

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) March 16, 2016

Michelle Hackman at Vox on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland:

So why would Obama make the choice to nominate a man who is considerably older and therefore able to serve on the Court for a more limited number of years?

There are a couple of possible explanations. The first is that Obama might very well believe Garland won’t be confirmed, in which case it makes sense to use an older, distinguished judge as a sacrificial lamb and allow his successor to elevate a younger nominee next year.

That is probably part of the calculus. But there’s a second, more interesting explanation that illuminates President Obama’s strategic thinking.

It is, simply put, that Garland’s age, like his moderate record, is yet another compromise.

A member of the Republican National Committee’s Rules Committee said that the party will decide who the GOP nominee will be, not the voters, The Hill reports. Said Curly Haugland: “The media has created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination… The political parties choose their nominees, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.” “Haugland, one of the party’s few unbound delegates that can decide who they want to vote for, argued that the party can block Trump even if he wins 1,237 delegates through the primaries.”

More popcorn, please.

The Economist Intelligence Unit concludes that a Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 GLOBAL RISK EVENT that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the United States and heighten security risks for the United States. The other GLOBAL RISK events that intelligence communities and governments around the world are preparing for just in case:

China experiences a hard landing
Russia’s interventions in Ukraine and Syria precede a new “cold war”
Currency volatility culminates in an emerging markets corporate debt crisis
“Brexit” and/or “Grexit” is followed by a euro zone break-up
The rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilises the global economy
Chinese expansionism prompts a clash of arms in the South China Sea
A collapse in investment in the oil sector prompts a future oil price shock

A Washington Post editorial calls on the Republican party to aim for a contested convention in order to stop Donald Trump.

“We do not take this position because we believe Mr. Trump is perilously wrong on the issues, although he is… No, Mr. Trump must be stopped because he presents a threat to American democracy. Mr. Trump resembles other strongmen throughout history who have achieved power by manipulating democratic processes.”

Politico: “Ad campaigns are in the works. There are calls for massive voter mobilizations and screeds from leading donors circulating within liberal circles. Major labor groups are organizing their members on the ground in swing states. Within the Democratic Party apparatus, top elected leaders are beginning to speak out both collectively and individually in ways that reach beyond standard presidential-year posturing.”

“The sense of urgency in some corners of the left is high enough that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive icon who has gone to great lengths to avoid being part of the Democratic presidential conversation in 2016, hinted on Monday that she might soon get involved with the effort to stop Trump.”

The New York Times profiles Donald Trump’s butler and makes this observation:

He understands Mr. Trump’s sleeping patterns and how he likes his steak (“It would rock on the plate, it was so well done”), and how Mr. Trump insists — despite the hair salon on the premises — on doing his own hair.

He does his own hair because he wants no one to know it is a massive overcomb to cover a massive bald spot. And I guess one must burn a Trump a steak in order to eat it.

Jake Novak:

There are the three key reasons for the Trump campaign’s impending November doom:

1) Primaries are like congressional midterms. They draw a much smaller number of voters with a much more defined agenda. Name recognition, the kind that Trump has enjoyed for years, is more crucial. The primary and midterm voters are also usually angrier than the average presidential general election voter, and that has worked in Trump’s favor since last June.

It’s impressive and unprecedented that Trump has been filling large stadiums and arenas during the primary stage of this election. But in general elections, stadium-sized crowds are standard fare. So while those Trump primary voters are sure to come out in November for the general election, they’re going to have a lot of company that’s likely to drown out a bigger portion of their voices. By definition, general elections are thus tipped more in favor of the more moderate candidates.

2) Trump really can’t track to the middle. ..

3) This is going to get uglier. I believe the nasty, violent, and clearly coordinated protests disrupting Trump rallies this weekend are actually helping his primary chances for now. At this stage, they make Trump look like the victim of decidedly liberal and non-Republican groups. But if there’s similar chaos at the Republican Convention and at Trump rallies in the general election, the perception will go from sympathy to fear, scorn, and a legitimate worry that a Trump who can’t keep the peace at his campaign rallies surely won’t be able to keep America safe as president.

Obama chose to paint the GOP into a corner with a moderate pick, thereby claiming the high ground for himself. It’s a strategy that you can disagree with, but it has already had one affect: Forcing Ron “I always blame both sides” Fournier to actually admit the truth once and for all following Sen. McConnell’s reaction to the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.

Objective as possible, I rarely come across a story where one side deserves 100% of blame. Congrats, GOP. You've stumped me with #SCOTUS

— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) March 16, 2016

Markos says the pick was a missed opportunity:

Let’s game this out:

1. You choose someone to showcase GOP radicalism. This was Obama’s approach. Pick a moderate jurist who’s been previously praised by Senate Republicans. It makes them look bad! Less crazy Republican voters, turned off by Donald Trump, decide to hold their noses and vote for Hillary Clinton because their party is a mess. But nothing stops them from voting for the rest of the Republican slate on the ballot.

2. You choose someone to excite the liberal base. You don’t peel away Republicans, but who gives a shit anyway. We don’t need them for the presidential race, and if they turn out, they hurt us downballot. But you excite liberals, help heal the party in this primary season, and that benefits us short- and long-term both up and down the ballot.

The right choice is so fucking obvious I can barely believe Obama did what he did. And this is why Clinton will ultimately be a better president than Obama—she will never try to appease Republicans or try to win them over. She knows they hate her guts, and she’s under no illusions she can change that.

I can see both arguments.

Booman, who is no fainting couch moderate Democrat:

It’s only the defeatists who don’t think that the president can get anyone confirmed who thought this pick should be selected to maximize turnout. As it stands, if the Democrats win the presidential election, the Republicans will run tripping over each other to confirm Garland in the lame duck. But they’re going to pay a brutal price for waiting that long because they have absolutely no argument against Garland on the merits.

I watched Fox News for half an hour after the announcement, and the majority of the people on there were saying that Garland was a good justice who should be confirmed and that the president had outfoxed (sic) the Republican leadership again. They pointed out that the public is totally against this obstructionist position that the Senate Republicans are taking, and they thought that Clinton will probably nominate someone much younger and less moderate if Garland isn’t approved.

The truth is, Garland will get confirmed no later than the lame duck and (if not) that Clinton would probably re-appoint him simply out of respect if nothing else. He’ll be a perfectly fine Justice, and he’s a reasonable compromise choice considering that the Republicans do have enough power to have a say in who will sit on the Court. Also, he doesn’t have to be a “progressive champion” to be the fifth vote in a liberal majority that will begin reversing two decades of conservative destruction on the High Court. I wish some people could just relax once in a while.