Thursday Open Thread [4.21.16]

PENNSYLVANIA—Franklin & Marshall–Trump 40, Cruz 26, Kasich 24
PENNSYLVANIA—Franklin & Marshall–Clinton 58, Sanders 31
PENNSYLVANIA—Monmouth–Clinton 52, Sanders 39
DELAWARE—Gravis Marketing–Trump 55, Kasich 18, Cruz 15.
DELAWARE—Gravis Marketing–Clinton 45, Sanders 38
CALIFORNIA—Gravis–Clinton 47, Sanders 41
NEW JERSEY—Rutgers-Eagleton–Clinton 50, Trump 36 | Clinton 50, Cruz 35
WISCONSIN—WPR/St. Norbert–Clinton 46, Trump 34 | Clinton 45, Cruz 44
NEW JERSEY–US SENATE–WPR/St. Norbert–Feingold51, Johnson 41
NEW JERSEY–US SENATE–WMUR/UNH–Ayotte 43, Hassan 42
MARYLAND—PPP–Clinton 61, Trump 28 | Clinton 58, Cruz 24

Martin Longman had his own “What Now for Bernie Sanders?” post yesteday:

I’ve encouraged Sanders to stay in the race and to get as many delegates as he can, and I’m not changing that position now. I don’t think he should do it half-ass, either, which means that he should aggressively make the case for himself.

But you shouldn’t listen when his campaign feeds you a line of magic, and you shouldn’t reward him if he’s clearly bullshitting you.

If you want the Democratic convention in Philadelphia to have as many Sanders supporters as possible, then vote for him. Just know that the goal here is to have a lot of progressive influence at the convention and to get a lot of progressives some experience working within the power structure of the Democratic Party. The goal is not to win the nomination anymore, but that doesn’t mean the fight should be over.

It troubles me that so many progressives got their hopes up and are now feeling despondent or worse. But the issues that got people excited about Bernie aren’t going away and the battle within the party goes on. If you let this be about one man, you’re were missing the big picture. This year’s delegates will have real influence, and they’ll be veterans four years from now. They’ll be in a position to change how the nomination process works. They’ll attain positions of local power. Some of them will become elected officials.

First Read: “That’s maybe the most stunning exit-poll result from last night: 66% of Democratic primary voters in New York said the Dem race has energized the party, versus 59% of Republican primary voters who said the GOP contests has divided theirs.”

Jim Nelson of GQ says President Obama will go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time:

Barack Obama will be inducted into the league of Great Presidents.

Wait. One of the Greatest? you ask, your thumb emoticon poised to turn up or down on me. The guy haters love to hate with their very best hate game? Like 20-Dollar Bill great? Like Mount Rushmore great?
Yep. (We just won’t build Mount Rushmores anymore.) In so many ways, Obama was better than we imagined, better than the body politic deserved, and far, far better than his enemies will ever concede, but the great thing about being great is that the verdict of enemies doesn’t matter.

This has to do with the nature of Obama’s leadership, which is to play to legacy (and Clinton’s impulse, which is to play to the room). Bill Clinton will long be revered because he’s charismatic, presided over an economic revival, and changed and elevated the view of the Democratic Party. Barack Obama will long be revered because he’s charismatic, presided over an economic revival, and changed and elevated the view of the presidency. He’s simply bigger than Bill.

More to the point, Obama’s legacy is the sort that gets canonized. Because the first rule of Hall of Fame-dom: The times have to suck for the president not to. Civil wars, World Wars, depressions and recessions. You got to have ’em if you wanna be great. That’s why we rate the Washingtons, Lincolns, and Roosevelts over That Fat Guy with the Walrus Mustache. Like Obama, these Great Men were dealt sucky hands, won big, and left the country better off than it was before.

Read the whole thing. I wholeheartedly agree.

First Read: “[Tuesday]’s big wins in New York by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton didn’t fundamentally alter the delegate math; in fact, the results were pretty much what we expected. But what last night served to do was make it harder to stop the two frontrunners. And that could be especially true after next week’s contests in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Are the two races over? It’s close to that on the Democratic side, while Trump is on a stronger path to a majority than he was two weeks ago.”

“Maybe more importantly, Trump needs to now win 57% of remaining delegates to hit that magic 1237 number — down from the 61% he needed before last night. And if Trump runs the table in next week’s contests, that 57% could be 52% or lower. Bottom line: Trump isn’t a sure bet to reach a majority; it’s more like a 50%-50% proposition. But he’s in a much better place than he was just two weeks after his loss in Wisconsin.”

Nate Silver thinks Trump “has a chance to nearly sweep the delegates next week — except in Rhode Island, where delegates are allocated highly proportionately.”

As Byron York notes, Cruz now has only one option left:

His campaign will be entirely negative — to keep Trump below 1,237. In effect, every vote for Cruz will be a strategic vote. Will that change the dynamics of the race? Trump obviously thinks so; he mentioned it specifically in his New York victory speech. And Trump will certainly remind voters of the fact in coming campaigning. What effect, if any, that will have on voters is just not clear.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed a resolution declaring pornography a “public health crisis.” There goes those small government Republicans again, now wanting to monitor your masturbation habits.

Markos Moultisas on the NY Exit Polls:

And yet again we see how stupid the idea of “momentum” is in primary politics. Demographics trump all.

Speaking of demographics, Sanders, as usual, cleaned up with young voters (67-33) and self-identified independents (74-26), while Clinton won handily among African Americans (75-25), Latinos (63-37), and urban areas (61-39). The reason Sanders won more Latinos than African Americans is that the Latino community is the youngest in the nation (median age, 18), and Sanders is winning youth of all stripes. (p.s. I have no empirical proof of that, it’s all circumstantial evidence.)

Interesting exit poll finding, asked “how worried are you about the direction of the nation’s economy,” only 12 percent of Democratic voters weren’t worried. Also interesting: only 30 percent of voters think Wall Street helps the US economy, and Clinton won them 78-22. Twenty-two percent of Bernie supporters are pro Wall Street? Huh… Meanwhile, 63 percent of Democratic voters had a more realistic view on Wall Street’s harmful effects on the US economy. Problem for Sanders is he only won those 56-44. I guess he didn’t convince that crowd that Clinton was cozy enough with Wall Street.

More exit poll goodness: 33 percent of Democrats were concerned or scared about a Clinton presidency. That number was 38 percent for a Sanders presidency. Furthermore, 14 percent of Democrats said they wouldn’t vote for Clinton in November—and 12 percent of those voted for Clinton. Huh? Meanwhile, 18 percent of Democrats said they wouldn’t vote for Sanders in November, and nine percent of those voted for Sanders. Whu? In any case, they’re almost all liars. Most people are smart enough to come together for the common good in the fall.

Charles Blow with the darker side of staying in the race:

But Tuesday, Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told MSNBC that if Clinton doesn’t clinch the nomination by pledged delegates alone, even if she has won the most popular votes, pledged delegates and states, Sanders will still take his fight to the convention. Sanders will “absolutely” try to turn superdelegates, who overwhelmingly support Clinton, and win the nomination that way.

First, barring something unforeseen and unimaginable, there is no way I can see that this strategy stands a gnat’s chance in hell of coming to fruition. It’s a fairy tale written in pixie dust.

But still, stop and consider what this means: The purist-of-principle, anti-establishment Sanders campaign would ask the superdelegates — the Democratic Party establishment — to overturn the will of the majority of participants in the Democrats’ nominating process.

The whole idea is outrageous coming from anyone, but coming from Sanders it seems to undermine the very virtues that make him attractive.

Power — even the proximity to it and the potential to wield it — is truly an intoxicant that blurs the vision and the lines.

Tony Karon on why Bernie Sanders’ movement is much larger than this election

Sanders’ campaign looks more like an extension of the extra-electoral politics of phenomena like the Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Fight for $15 and Dreamer movements, small-d democratic citizen activism bypassing political institutions beholden to narrow, moneyed interests. Those movements are based outside the Democratic party – as was Sanders himself before he decided to seek its nomination – but through grassroots activism they have forced their issues on to the party’s agenda. Sanders has taken that same disruptive spirit into a national campaign to restore the Democrats’ New Deal values, and reverse their capitulation to the Republican fiscal agenda that began with the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Burke Stansbury:

Bernie Sanders is talking about ambitious, progressive ideas – universal healthcare, free college education, expanding social security, dramatically reining in the power of corporations. His ideas about overhauling our healthcare system are particularly attractive for me, since my six-year-old son has a significant physical disability that requires extensive interaction with our failing insurance-based system.

At the same time, it’s encouraging to see Hillary Clinton tacking left, possibly because of Sanders’ outspoken liberalism, condemning mass incarceration and speaking strongly in support of large public investment in communities – mostly black and brown – that have seen historic disinvestment. That real solutions to our country’s deep-seated problems around income inequality, institutional racism and climate change, among other things, are being put forward in the context of a major party nominating process is as surprising as it is profound.

But we can’t kid ourselves and think that just because some presidential candidates promise to address an issue that it will come to pass. If Barack Obama’s election taught us anything, it is that placing our hopes and dreams in the hands of a charismatic leader is not enough to bring about significant social change; to do that, we need organized people in the streets. We need powerful social movements.

Jason is in full Trump panic mode, for reasons passing understanding. To calm him, since he loves betting markets:

Now this is interesting:

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said on Wednesday that the senator will remain a Democrat after the 2016 presidential election. […] “Well, he is a Democrat. He’s said he’s a Democrat, and he’s gonna be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is,” Weaver responded. And when asked of Sanders was now a “Democrat for life,” Weaver said, “Yes, he is.”

Ben and I were discussing in the comments yesterday the future of Bernie Sanders, and he was aiming for VP or Majority Leader of the Senate, and I was going for something more informal: a leader of a wing of the Democratic Party in the Senate and nationwide, who will have considerable sway on a President Clinton. This comment by Weaver indicates Bernie maybe taking that latter track, and if he does, good for him and great for the party.