National

Booman says we are in for a long primary, even if Clinton becomes the inevitable nominee in March:

Even if Clinton rips off a bunch of big victories in a row and seems like the inevitable nominee, it’s pretty unlikely that Sanders will concede because he’ll have all the money he needs to keep campaigning. And I don’t think he really set out to win this thing at the beginning, so he’s not quitting just because he realizes that he won’t be nominated. He’ll want to keep hammering home his points and gathering delegates for the convention. A long campaign will be painful, but 2008 showed there can be important upsides. The more states the two campaigns organize, the more work they’ll have done in advance of the general election. The more the country is focused on the differences between Clinton and Sanders, the more they’ll be focused on their messaging and values and the less they’ll be focused on the messaging and values of the Republicans. It’s true that some feelings will get hurt and some bitterness will result. It’s not cost-free to have an extended contested nomination, and the eventual nominee will get wounded. But, even here, some of Obama’s worst vulnerabilities were old news by November precisely because they’d been hashed out in the winter and spring. As long as the process doesn’t leave the nominee underfunded, it’s probably not a problem to have a long primary season.

I'm not surprised Trump thinks we "paid Iran $150 billion" as part of the nuclear deal.  All the nutso GOP candidates for President keep saying that we did, and Fox…

Dylan Matthews has his winners and losers. Winner: Bernie and Hillary. Losers: Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wall Street.

On some level, the Democratic primary process is now zero-sum, with any gains to Sanders hurting Clinton and vice versa. And that's true in a narrow sense. But both candidates gave very strong performances that emphasized their respective strengths. Regardless of who won in relative terms, both clearly succeeded in making the most compelling case for their respective candidacies. For Clinton, that meant giving her strongest performance to date on foreign policy. She's still well to the right of the Democratic Party as a whole on these questions. But she also is actually well-versed in them, whereas Sanders's comments on foreign policy appear limited to a) praising the foreign policy achievements of the Obama administration, and b) hammering Clinton for her vote for the Iraq War. [...] Sanders clearly won on domestic policy. Clinton clearly won on foreign policy. And both gave excellent performances that offered compelling substantive grounds for supporting them. It feels perverse to label either a loser.

To paraphrase Josh Marshall, you like Sanders if you think winning results from progressive Democratic values, and you like Clinton if you think Democratic progress results from winning.

1 in 150 employees who say their organization does not have a set of values are "Fully Engaged." Okay.  That's a survey of employees. Just imagine what the ratio must…

So Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders got into a little bit of a Twitter war yesterday, over Progressivism. If there is a war as to who is the MOST progressive, Bernie wins. But Bernie does what every Purist Progressive does, in that they think they can define for all who and who is not Progressive, with the answer always being that only Purists can be called Progressive. Purist Progressives are horrible, HORRIBLE, at building coalitions for this very reason. Because any deviation from dogma is a sin and the sinner must be cast out and burned at the stake. Hillary is who she says she is, a pragmatic progressive who likes to get things done. To Bernie, getting things done is a heresy that must be condemned. And Brian Beutler says Bernie better quit it soon or else he will be unelectable.

One of the questions at the heart of the fight between Clinton and Sanders is whether Sanders’s promise to lead a political revolution that brings the United States closer to social democracy is credible or fantastic. The argument frequently pits cynics and pragmatists, who see Barack Obama’s high-minded-candidacy-turned-difficult-presidency as an object lesson in the unloveliness of governing, against idealists and counterfactualists, who say Obama never attempted to turn the promise of his campaign into progressive action. Even if you side with Team Sanders on this question, the insight that gave rise to that tweet (that pitting progressives against moderates is an effective tactic in a two-person Democratic primary) is incompatible with the goal of uniting the existing Democratic base with the unattached voters and Republicans of the white working class. It may even be incompatible with building a majority coalition in a general election. The list of reasons to worry Sanders is unelectable is unusually long. To paraphrase Vox’s David Roberts: Sanders would be far and away the oldest president to take office; he has self-identified as a socialist for most of his career, undeterred by the media’s inability to distinguish between social democrats (what he is) and Leninists (what Republicans will say he is); he supports a higher tax on middle-class labor, which is politically and substantively the worst way to finance a welfare state expansion. On top of all that, he is unabashed about his disinterest in party coalition building. He’s happy to represent one wing of it, but not inclusively enough to pick up endorsements from influential party actors. This is all exacerbated by the fact that he’s spent his congressional career as an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and has never plied his popularity into helping Democratic colleagues get elected. This increases the likelihood that down-ballot Democrats would run away from him in a tough race, rather than rally to unite the party. But you can set all that aside, too, and just consider the ramifications of Sanders’s defeating Clinton by boxing her out of the progressive movement, and using the term “moderate” as an epithet to describe deviations from his agenda.

Progressives should welcome Clinton's embrace of progressivism, for that means that Progressivism has control of the party. At this rate, if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, he will lose in such spectacular fashion that he will destroy Progressivism for 50 years.

“Hillary Clinton is dispatching at least 150 people from her campaign headquarters in Brooklyn Heights to New Hampshire for an all-hands-on-deck effort here in advance of the Democratic primary on Tuesday,” BuzzFeed reports. Politico: “The feeling at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters these days isn’t about pulling off an upset — it’s about closing the gap, and halting Sanders’ momentum by denying him an easy win in a state that should be a cakewalk. In some respects New Hampshire is the only state where Team Clinton can flip the inevitability script — with Sanders positioned as the favorite with lots to lose.”