NATIONAL—Ipsos/Reuters–Trump 49, Cruz 31, Kasich 16
NATIONAL—Ipsos/Reuters–Clinton 51, Sanders 45
CALIFORNIA—Capitol Weekly/Sextant Strategies–Trump 41, Cruz 23, Kasich 21.
INDIANA—Politico Internal–Cruz 32, Trump 32, Kasich 14
Washington Post: “Hillary Clinton’s victory in the New York primary Tuesday has brought Sen. Bernie Sanders one step closer to a series of difficult decisions that can be summed up in one simple question: What does Bernie want? How he answers that question will have a direct bearing on how united Democrats will be heading into the fall campaign — and whether Sanders will be able to leverage his success this year into lasting power and influence.”
“Hillary Clinton’s short list of vice presidential options will include a woman, a top campaign official said in an interview — creating the possibility of an all-female ticket emerging from the Democratic convention in Philadelphia,” the Boston Globe reports. Said campaign chairman John Podesta: “We’ll start with a broad list and then begin to narrow it. But there is no question that there will be women on that list.”
“The development immediately injects liberal darling Senator Elizabeth Warren’s name into the growing speculation about who Clinton will choose as her running mate now that she is almost certainly on track to become the nominee.”
Clinton-Warren would solve all Sanders-related problems. And I know the argument against it: Warren is better in the Senate, we can’t lose a progressive in the Senate. Well, the Progressive caucus in the Senate is not just Sanders and Warren. There is Merkley, Baldwin, Brown, Schatz, Sanders, Warren, Murphy, Booker, Markey, Reed, Franken and Hirono. Plus I assume Warren wouldn’t accept it unless she is given significant policy management.
Nate Cohn: “Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next Tuesday, uses a nonbinding ‘loophole’ primary — and that could cost Donald Trump the Republican nomination.”
“If the state adopted the delegate rules of any other primary, he would probably be an even-money favorite, or better, to amass the 1,237 delegates needed before the convention. Instead, his chances may come down to the whims of 54 unpledged Pennsylvania delegates.”
Carl Cannon wonders what would have happened if Elizabeth Warren would have run: “Let’s be honest, though. These are four flawed candidates, which is why when two or more Republicans are in a room the talk turns to Paul Ryan. In a more muted fashion the same worry permeates the Democratic Party, which finds itself choosing between a 74-old senator who called himself a socialist until recently and a familiar face with lots of baggage, mainly about her credibility and character.”
“But the Democrats also had a knight in shining armor who chose not to run. Unlike Paul Ryan, she could have amassed delegates the old-fashioned way—by winning primaries and caucuses. The 2016 campaign set up perfectly for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. If she’d run, we might not be paying any attention to Tuesday’s New York primary. Warren may well have locked up the Democratic presidential nomination by now.”
If she’d run, Sanders would not have, but Hillary would have. I don’t think the race would be over, because many Democrats do love Hillary and are voting FOR her rather than AGAINST Sanders, but Warren would be favored to win.
“The Republican Party is not capable of nominating anyone who is electable nationally.” — Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), quoted by the Oneonta Daily Star.
National Review: “Indiana has emerged as Cruz’s top priority. It awards 57 delegates, and Cruz’s brain trust believes a clean sweep there — or close to it — would erase Trump’s already-thin margin for error and effectively end his hopes of entering Cleveland with 1,237 delegates. Accordingly, they have been preparing to throw everything they have at the state, in an effort to reapply the formula that worked to such devastating effect in Wisconsin.”
“Still, Indiana, despite its demographic similarities, isn’t Wisconsin — and the perfect storm that lifted Cruz to victory there April 5 could prove impossible to recreate. The conservative talk-radio army that toppled Trump is nowhere to be found. There is no sign — yet — of a multimillion-dollar assault by outside groups on the GOP front-runner. And unlike Wisconsin, where Cruz was backed by much of the Republican establishment, Indiana’s top officials have not rallied to him.”
In the aftermath of this rout, the chances of Sanders winning the Democratic nomination are so small that some in his camp are now pinning their hopes on winning over superdelegates. Or on pulling off a miracle in multiple ballots at a contested convention, Republican style. That’s not happening. If Sanders’s presidential bid is not over already, the nails in the coffin are likely to be hammered in next week in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island. So why should he stay in? One reason: to help prepare and toughen up Hillary Clinton for what’s to come in a general election that may well not be the cakewalk so many Democrats seem to be taking as a fait accompli.
Clinton’s landslide in her adopted home state of New York was overwhelming. But it doesn’t mask the fact that many voters find her untrustworthy, as reflected in her sliding national poll numbers. In the latest Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll, Sanders has moved within two points of her nationally. That’s meaningless in terms of the overall horse race between them, but beneath that umbrella number are other findings that show her negative numbers on the rise among the overall electorate — not to Trump levels, but grim by any other standard. Even her approval ratings among both black and Latino voters have slid decisively since the start of the year. Of course she is going to win those groups overwhelmingly in November. But if their turnout is depressed because of a lack of enthusiasm, that’s a problem, particularly given her poor numbers among young Democratic voters who may be tempted to stay home with neither Barack Obama nor Bernie on the ballot, and her poor standing among white voters in general. Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who co-runs the WSJ-NBC poll with the Democrat Peter Hart, calculates that Clinton’s “favorability” rating among whites is lower than Obama’s has ever been. That’s saying something.
A coronation may be what the Clinton campaign now wants, but I’d suggest that Clinton has more to gain by staying in a dialogue, a debate, with Sanders, and ultimately forging some kind of communion with him and, more important, his voters, in real time. She will need every one of them in November. Indeed, I’d argue that if Sanders continues to be as strident and harsh as he was during the New York primary campaign, that is also to Clinton’s benefit — as long as she refuses to rise to the bait and instead presents herself as an upbeat counterpart to both him and Trump. Sanders pulling out now, or soon, would deny her that opportunity, allow Trump to monopolize the national stage all spring, and reinforce exactly the sense of entitlement Clinton needs to avoid if she is to start to reclaim a positive public image.
The Queen turned 90 this week, and I wanted to share this story her badass Majesty:
After lunch, the Queen had asked her royal guest whether he would like a tour of the estate. Prompted by his foreign minister the urbane Prince Saud, an initially hesitant Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] had agreed. The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, his interpreter in the seat behind.
To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not — yet — allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen.
His nervousness only increased as the Queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.
The RNC “is scaling back its financial commitments to some of the most hotly contested states because of flagging fund-raising, the most concrete evidence yet of how the party’s divisive and protracted presidential race is threatening the entire Republican ticket in November,” the New York Times reports.
“Committee officials outlined detailed plans in written ‘playbooks’ distributed this year in the most competitive states about how they intended to assist Republican campaigns up and down the ballot with money and manpower. By July 1, Florida was to have 256 field organizers and Ohio another 176, for example, according to a state party chairman in possession of the strategy books who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.”
“Hillary Clinton has burned through tens of millions of dollars to counter Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in states that are unlikely to be general election battlegrounds, delaying any pivot to the general election and shrinking her potential financial advantage over the eventual Republican nominee,” the New York Times reports.
“While Mrs. Clinton has built a significant advantage in pledged delegates over Mr. Sanders in the Democratic nominating contest, her lead has come at a significant cost. She spent more than she raised in each of the first three months of the year, according to Federal Election Commission data, including more than $12 million on ads in March alone… Mrs. Clinton has spent at least $20 million on advertising in states like New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, money that could otherwise have been saved for the general election.”
Donald Trump would “absolutely” change the Republican Party’s platform on abortion to include exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, Politico reports. Said Trump: “Yes, I would. Yes, I would. Absolutely. For the three exceptions, I would.” Well, that alone will burn down Quicken Arena.
The true believers on the right will stay home if a pro abortion platform is adopted at the RNC, and pro abortion to them is any exception to a complete abortion ban. They will not vote for Trump.