National

Well, Bernie got his first quality narrative changing shocking upset of a win in Michigan last night. All his prior wins could be discounted in one way or another: caucus states, states close to Vermont, states that were overly white and liberal electorates. Michigan is the first state that is nearly identical to the demographics of the nation as a whole where he won. Sure, it's a very narrow win, and sure, Hillary actually won the delegate count, both in Michigan and throughout the night, thus expanding her almost insurmountable lead, but a win is a win. And you need wins, especially the unexpected shocking upsets kind of wins to change narratives and momentum, and campaigns are all about narratives and momentum. So for the last two weeks, I have been crowing about Hillary's success, so Bernie supporters, feel free to crow here about his success last night. Hey, if Hillary had won Michigan, I would have been saying the race is over. Remember what Chris Bowers said yesterday, that Bernie needed to win Michigan. He did. Celebrate it if you feel that rash commonly referred to as the Bern. Tomorrow, we will begin to talk about whether this win changes the course of the race.

Rebecca Traister imagines a Clinton/Trump race:

Clinton’s South Carolina speech, which emphasized racial unity and a message of peace, love, and understanding, forecasts how she plans to frame her campaign in opposition to the bombastic demagogue who trades on anger and prejudice. But it also points up just how much they are running in two separate elections, to be president of two different countries. Trump is running in the country that is in the midst of a dramatic and terrifying backlash to the social movements of the past 50 years; Clinton herself represents the very victories of some of those movements and is seeking to modestly stabilize their gains. In the end, this may be an epic, gory battle between those who are threatened by the changing face of power in America and those who are doing the changing.

Usually, the more optimistic and hopeful campaign wins, especially when the economy is good (which it is) and when presidential approval is good (which it is, as Obama is over 50% approval).

Some thoughts on the Democratic debate last night: Rick Klein: “The race for the Democratic nomination may be effectively over, or at least well on its way. But the populist fire that’s being stoked by Bernie Sanders’ campaign isn’t dying down -– at least if Sanders has anything to do with it.” “Clinton and Sanders have kept the campaign about substance, for the most part, even if the same ground has been tread repeatedly. Given the noise being generated by the GOP these days, the passion on the Democratic side may be a welcome dynamic.” Mark Halperin: “The usual rhythms of Clinton versus Sanders—feisty, crotchety, substantive, exasperated but respectful—were replicated in another one-on-one debate.” Vox's Dara Lind has the winners and losers from the debate: Bernie and Hillary are both winners, along with Flint, Michigan, the site of the debate, and whose water crisis was the subject of much of the first part of the debate. The losers were Don Lemon for his dumb questions about racism, and the entire Republican Party, for looking horrible in comparison to the substantive reasonable rational adult Democrats.

By now everyone has seen this viral video of Ben Carson toppling out of the back of the GOP clown car and wondering around dazed on a highway for a…

Matt Yglesias' says Bernie Sanders lost last night even though he won 2 states last night. Why?

Kansas and Nebraska combine to offer 58 delegates while Louisiana carries 51. Clinton's margin of victory in her state was much bigger than Sanders' in either of his states, so it is entirely possible that when all is said and done she will have won more delegates than he did. More to the point, with every passing election that Sanders does not alter the fundamental demographics of the race it becomes clearer and clearer that he is drawing dead in this campaign. We've seen time and again that Sanders can beat Clinton in states that have overwhelmingly white Democratic parties. His problem is that there aren't enough white Democrats to make this strategy work. So far, Clinton has won every contest in a state where the African-American share of the population is over eight percent (she's also won Iowa). The Sanders campaign has characterized these as "red states" and it's true that so far that's mostly meant southern states. But Virginia isn't red, and Massachusetts isn't in the South. The problem for Sanders is that Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Indiana are still outstanding with black population shares over 8 percent. California's African-American population is on the small side, but due to giant Asian and Hispanic populations it's one of the least-white states in the union. Two months ago, the Sanders campaign happily conceded that they had no path to victory without improving their standing with nonwhite voters. But over the past couple of weeks they've retreated to proclaiming themselves happy with wins in low-population overwhelmingly white states. That's fine on a level of pure spin, but there's no path to victory here.