Saturday Open Thread [4.30.16]

NATIONAL—IBD/TIPP–Trump 48, Cruz 29, Kasich 16
NATIONAL—IBD/TIPP–Clinton 49, Sanders 43
INDIANA—Clout Research (R)–Trump 37, Cruz 35, Kasich 16
INDIANA—IPFW/Downs Center–Clinton 54, Sanders 41
INDIANA—IPFW/Downs Center–Cruz 45, Trump 29, Kasich 13
INDIANA—ARG–Trump 41, Cruz 32, Kasich 21
INDIANA—ARG–Clinton 51, Sanders 43

John Sides: “The longest-running measure of American attitudes about the economy is the Index of Consumer Sentiment. Before I had looked at these data, I was sure I’d find that sentiment was only a bit more positive than it was when Obama took office. But in fact, the upward trend — with the exception of the drop during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis — is striking. This upward trend is also reflected in data from Pew and Gallup.”

“As of the first quarter of 2016, even with a slight downturn in the second and third quarters of 2015, consumer sentiment was as positive as it had been since the mid-2000s. It was also as positive as it had been in the mid-1980s during the recovery from the recession of 1981-1982. For example, the value of consumer sentiment at the end of 1983, as Ronald Reagan’s reelection campaign was gearing up, was 91.6. In the first three months of 2015, it was almost exactly the same: 91.5.”

“In other words, consumer sentiment is as positive as it was at the beginning of the election year when Reagan argued that it was ‘Morning in America.’”

This is why Clinton is running a positive campaign embracing Obama and why it will work.

Politico:

In the swing states that matter most in the presidential race, Donald Trump doesn’t have a prayer against Hillary Clinton in the general election. That’s according to top operatives, strategists and activists in 10 battleground states who participated in this week’s POLITICO Caucus. Nearly 90 percent of them said Clinton would defeat Trump in their home states in a November matchup.

Nate Silver: “Indiana Gov. Mike Pence endorsed Ted Cruz on Friday, which may not be enough to help Cruz win Indiana, where he currently trails Donald Trump in polls, let alone the Republican nomination. Nevertheless, the endorsement is part of a pattern: With the exception of a single congressman from Western New York, no Republican who faces a competitive gubernatorial, Senate or House election this November has endorsed Trump.”

“There are 11 Republican senators and 34 Republican members of the House who face competitive races, according to Cook. The only one to have endorsed Trump is Tom Reed, the incumbent from New York’s 23rd Congressional District, a Republican-leaning swing district that covers much of the rural, western part of the state.”

Kevin Drum never felt the Bern:

I mean this as a provocation—but I also mean it. So if you’re provoked, mission accomplished! Here’s my argument. Bernie’s explanation for everything he wants to do—his theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pick—is that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington, DC, is paralyzed.

But as Bill Scher points out, the revolution that Bernie called for didn’t show up. In fact, it’s worse than that: we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along. Think about it: has there ever been an economic revolution in the United States?

Greg Sargent responds:

In one narrow sense, I agree with Drum. Sanders has offered an oversimplified indictment of the Obama years, by arguing that Obama-era reform fell woefully short of the scale of our challenges precisely because Democrats remained in thrall to plutocratic money and failed to rally the grassroots to break GOP Congressional opposition. This gives short shrift to what was achieved and risks misleading people about the structural constraints built into our system — and about the obstacles the GOP’s structural and ideological entrenchment pose to progressive change.

But has Sanders crossed over into running an outright con that risks leaving his “impressionable” supporters disillusioned and ultimately hurting the progressive movement, by articulating unflinchingly ambitious social democratic reform goals for the future? The question is worth thinking about, since the fate of the Sanders movement — to the degree that there is one — could matter a good deal to Democratic politics going forward.

I don’t see why Sanders’s candidacy represents a “con,” or why all of this is destined to play out the way Drum suggests it might. In fact, it may be more likely that the opposite proves true.

For one thing, it’s not really clear whether Sanders is the one indoctrinating his young supporters, or whether he’s speaking effectively to a set of ideals that were already taking shape among them (it could obviously be a combination of the two).

I agree with Sargent in that Sanders would not have caught on if millennials weren’t already very liberal to begin with and also particularly screwed by a host of economic factors. And Sanders wasn’t conning anyone. He actually believes what he says. That both structural, constitutional and political obstacles to his plans would fall away in the face of his revolution. But he was wrong, and his revolution didn’t occur.

Eugene Robinson on the appeal of a Clinton-Warren ticket: “As Clinton’s running mate, Warren could erase this potential weakness with the Democratic base. She has spent her Senate career becoming known as the scourge of Wall Street. No political figure is more closely identified with efforts to curb the excesses of the financial system.”

“Warren would also help address another potential vulnerability. If the general-election matchup is Trump vs. Clinton — and that seems increasingly likely — it is becoming clear that on the question of U.S. military involvement around the world, Trump will position himself to the left of Clinton.”

“Clinton is a foreign policy traditionalist. As secretary of state, she was more hawkish than President Obama — she pushed for more vigorous intervention in Syria, for example. She has long since apologized for her vote to authorize the Iraq War, but Sanders continues to attack her for it. Trump would surely do the same. Warren wasn’t in Congress when the Iraq War began, and national security isn’t the issue with which she is identified. But her views fit squarely with those of the party’s progressive wing.”

Rick Klein on whether the GOP race is ending early: “After all the anticipation, might the Republican race end early? Those are the stakes in Indiana, and they’re being reinforced by the optics and realities being projected by the GOP establishment. At the very moment that anti-Donald Trump forces need the party to turn against Trump, it’s turning against Ted Cruz instead. John Boehner calls Cruz ‘Lucifer in the flesh,’ and former Sen. Judd Gregg calls him a ‘demagogue’s demagogue.’ Trump, meanwhile, has picked up three new House endorsements, and – for the first time – showed grassroots organizing muscle in sweeping the delegate slates in Pennsylvania. Sen. Bob Corker offered praise for his foreign-policy speech, and Ron Kaufman – a prominent veteran of the Mitt Romney and George H.W. Bush campaigns – is equating Trump to an eastern version of Ronald Reagan.”

“A Trump win in Indiana would put an exclamation point on his recent win streak that will be near-impossible to erase. Historians will debate whether Trump is more lucky than good, and having a final matchup against Cruz will argue for the lucky camp. But this looks like a Republican Party coming to terms with Trump, rather than gearing up for a final battle to block him.”

According to Morning Consult surveys in all 50 states, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) is the most popular U.S. Senator in the country. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is the least popular.

A new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll in New Jersey finds just 26% of voters have a favorable opinion of Gov. Chris Christie (R), while 64% are unfavorable towards him.

Campbell Brown: “I really would like to blame Trump. But everything he is doing is with TV news’ full acquiescence. Trump doesn’t force the networks to show his rallies live rather than do real reporting. Nor does he force anyone to accept his phone calls rather than demand that he do a face-to-face interview that would be a greater risk for him. TV news has largely given Trump editorial control. It is driven by a hunger for ratings—and the people who run the networks and the news channels are only too happy to make that Faustian bargain.”

“Which is why you’ll see endless variations of this banner, one I saw all three cable networks put up in a single day: ‘Breaking news: Trump speaks for first time since Wisconsin loss.’ In all these scenes, the TV reporter just stands there, off camera, essentially useless. The order doesn’t need to be stated. It’s understood in the newsroom: Air the Trump rallies live and uninterrupted. He may say something crazy; he often does, and it’s always great television.”