National

Dana Milbank:

Also of note is that the partisan polarization occurs even though Americans aren’t all that split on policies or ideology. Their partisanship is more tribal than anything — the result of an ill-informed electorate. “In order to have an understanding of the ideology of your party and the opposing party you have to have a lot of information,” and “that’s something that just doesn’t happen for the majority of the electorate,” said Westwood. “However, most people understand their side is good and the opposing side is bad, so it’s much easier for them to form these emotional opinions of political parties.” This leads to a grim conclusion: The problem with politics isn’t Washington but the electorate. Members of Congress, most of whom come from safely gerrymandered districts, are behaving in a perfectly rational way when they avoid cooperation with the other party and instead try to build support within their own tribe.

It's the Fox News problem. Back in the day, there was a balanced media that punished extremism. But for 20 years now, there has been one channel dedicated to ideological news. That has led to having half the electorate being ill informed and rejecting any compromise, because their news anchors rejected reality and any compromise by not punishing extremism. So now you have a political party that rejects reality and compromise and does not punish extremism. The electorate is part of it, but Milbank has to look at HOW the electorate got uninformed.

Nancy LeTourneau on the dynamics between Hillary and Obama as we come up to 2016, because, if you haven't already noticed, Obama is no lame duck and he will not leave the stage until his time is up, and Hillary is not running from him, she is running towards him.

The modern-day precedent has typically been set by presidents who found themselves embroiled in scandals during their second term - which contributed to their lame-duckness (Reagan with Iran/Contra, Clinton with impeachment and Bush with Iraq/financial crisis). The dynamics will be very different this time around. And so it should come as no surprise that - as Chozick, Haberman and Martin point out - Hillary Clinton has decided to run on President Obama’s record rather than triangulate between he and Republicans.

Rather than run from Mr. Obama, she intends to turn to him as one of her campaign’s most important allies and advocates — second only, perhaps, to her husband, the other president whose record will hover over her bid… Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said that she “is proud of what was accomplished, both as President Obama’s partner on critical issues of national security, and on the progress made on the domestic front” and that “a campaign would be about laying out her own vision for tackling our toughest challenges.”

Given the current political dynamics, that is a very good move.

A new Bloomberg poll finds Americans “are becoming more optimistic about the country’s economic prospects by several different measures. President Obama’s handling of the economy is being seen more positively than negatively for the first time in more than five years, 49% to 46% — his best number in this poll since September 2009.” But the survey “also reveals that about three-fourths of Democrats and independents, along with a majority of Republicans, say the gap is growing between the rich and everyone else — and a majority of women want the government to intervene to shrink it.” This is horribly bad news for Republicans.

So for the first time ever, Delaware Liberal readers are neutral or have no opinion on someone or something. 50% said that they were either neutral, had no opinion, or didn't know enough about Republican Treasurer Ken Simpler to have an opinion on him one way or the other. And that is logical, since Treasurer Simpler has not done anything yet publicly, nor has he been the typical annoying and grating Republican. 35% approve whatever it is that Simpler is doing, 24% do so strongly. 15% disapprove.

Jason is always fond of London's odd gambling market, which you can find a bookie to bet on everything it appears. And the reason he is fond of it is because, to him, it is a true indicator of polling intention, because people are betting their real money on whether a certain candidate can win. And sure, you can put money down on an outlier candidate with high odds, but that candidate better have a realistic shot for the nomination and the Presidency. For example, if you put money on Ben Carson, you are a fool. Hillary is by far and away the odds on favorite. Some outfits have her as an 11/10 favorite, or 5/4, or 6/5, or even money at 1/1. Jeb Bush is next in line as a 7/2 favorite, or 4/1, or 5/1. Marco Rubio's odds fall in a range between 7/1 and 11/. Scott Walker's odds similarly range from 7/1 to 12/1 (though most have him in the double digits behind Rubio.

Division 1 is fully booked. (Me, Pandora, Steve Newton, Prop Joe and AQC) will be facing off for the big money. Division 2 is filling up. (Delaware Dem vs...? You?) Here is how it works. The league is open to 5 players per division. Division 2 is a $5.00 buy in (entertainment only/winner take all). Each player will each draft 4 candidates from the list compiled by Delaware Dem. Your team will accrue points based on the number of days they are in the race for the Republican nomination. So, for example, Rand Paul announced on April 7th. If he makes it all the way to the convention (July 18 2016) he will have been in the race for 469 days, netting his team 469 points. If John Bolton never enters the race, he will have been in the race for 0 days netting his team zero points. If Division 2 fills up over the weekend, we'll try to have the draft on Monday via live chat or something. Who is in?

Nate Cohn: “Mr. Rubio’s struggle to break through is a powerful reminder that winning a presidential primary is not just about skill as a politician. It’s about positioning, and Mr. Rubio, at the moment, is in a much worse position than many assessments of his political talent would suggest. In basketball terms, he’s boxed out.” “His central problem is that Jeb Bush has found considerable support from the party’s mainstream conservative and moderate donors in the so-called invisible primary — the behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that often decides the nomination… Mr. Bush’s pre-emptive bid to build elite support has denied Mr. Rubio the opportunity to consolidate the center-right wing of the party. Perhaps this wouldn’t be a big problem if Mr. Rubio were a favorite of the conservatives skeptical of Mr. Bush’s candidacy, but the field is full of candidates who are equally good or better fits for many conservative voters.” He's not running for President. He is running for Vice President.

45% strongly disapprove of Senator Tom Carper's job performance. An additional 21% somewhat disapprove. Only 31% approve in any way, somewhat or strongly, of the Senator. These are not unexpected numbers. When you play both sides of the aisle, both sides of the aisle will grow to dislike you. The middle ground the Senator seeks to never move from (but if he has to he will move right) is not the place you live at in politics. It's the place you come to to compromise with those on other side. If you start out in the middle ground, then you have no where to go but to the right. This is why liberals strongly dislike Tom Carper. And it will probably never change.