Decision 2016

[Greg]

Spike Lee backs Bernie Sanders ahead of primary: 'Wake up, South Carolina!':

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... ary-voters

[Mister Tee]

But I'm starting to worry about riots outside the convention or a scandal that catches fire.

To somewhat paraphrase The Usual Suspects: The greatest trick the devil GOP ever pulled was convincing Democrats the Clintons were always about to be drowned in scandal.

Please take this from someone who's watched this for a quarter century: there will be no scandal. There will be ominous hints there's ABOUT to be one...there'll be ridiculous news stories telling you, if you looking a certain way, you can CONVINCE yourself there's something scandalous...but, in the end, there'll be nothing. This is the most investigated couple in the history of the US...if no one's found anything on them by now, there's nothing to find.

I'm not sure where you think riots are going to come from, but, if it's based on some rancor from the Sanders vote, I really don't think that's more than Internet noise. Polling in Nevada, as in NH, says that most Democratic voters like BOTH candidates, and would be happy to vote for either. The outliers scream pretty loud, but they aren't representative of anything significant.

[Sabin]

Something I could post in "How did this Oscar season lose its fizz?" would be how can anybody pretend to care about what wins Best Picture in this political season? Every day I make a conscious choice to limit my Real Clear Politics time.

A few months ago, I wondered what states Rubio can win. If Rubio can win Florida, that will provide him with general election narrative weight at the convention...except the last poll had Trump beating him by 26 points! Cruz leads Rubio in Florida. I don't know how you survive coming in third in your own state. RCP's last update was 01/27 so it's possible a lot has changed since then but Marco Rubio would be their perfect candidate in an ordinary year. But this wasn't an ordinary year. Between Trump, Carson, and the establishment not pulling the plug on Jeb after Iowa, I don't see how Rubio can play the alternative card when he hasn't won anything.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but on the Republican side there are really only two outcomes: 1) Donald Trump wins a majority of delegates, 2) Donald Trump wins a plurality. If he wins a majority, then who knows who he picks as his running mate. His best bet would be Ben Carson because nobody would shoot him. If he wins a plurality, then we either have ground floor vote shenanigans possibly resulting in a third party run that hands the Republican their worst defeat since Alf Landon. Or Rubio and Cruz throw their weight behind Trump for the second spot on the ticket. Kasich can't stomach that, but they will. And I'm guessing the establishment will make it clear to Trump that the only person they hate more than him is Cruz so the only bright spot in this whole thing will be that Ted Cruz walks away with nothing.

On the Democratic side, I'd like to think that Bernie Sanders' run has been mixed for the Democratic party and terrible for Hillary Clinton. He's pushed the party to the left, made them fear for losing the youth vote, and inspired a legion of young people to get involved again and believe in change. He's forced Hillary to write checks her ass has to cash (or inevitably blame on Republican obstruction). But I'm starting to worry about riots outside the convention or a scandal that catches fire.

[Mister Tee]

I've grown accustomed to commenting on political developments on Wednesdays, post-primary, but this weekend of course saw activity that bears analysis.

The Nevada results brought relief to those of us convinced of Hillary's decisive long-term advantage; with the New Hampshire result being endlessly cited, we felt a bit like Bale in The Big Short when his fund was down 17%. Nevada wasn't a great Hillary state – those will start appearing next Saturday in South Carolina, and really pop on March 1st – but it was a normal enough environment that she needed to win there to make the case she was on her way. Sanders was again helped by the open nature of the primary – exit polls say he took about ¾ of the independent vote – but even with that she topped him convincingly. Sanders voters get angry when pundits talk about his heavily uphill battle from here – their reaction is an understandable "the votes haven't been cast yet; how can you be so sure?" But what pundits are saying isn't far off from the analysis that brought Nate Silver to prominence in '08: looking down the road, projecting demographics, and seeing the likelihood of a lopsided contest. If Sanders makes unforeseen breakthroughs with the black and Hispanic vote a week from tomorrow, we can talk about an ongoing battle. But current numbers suggest he will do well enough in white-dominated states (especially those with crossover voting), but get roasted in more ethnically diverse ones and/or those who limit voting to Democrats.

Over on the Republican side…the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy makes it harder to come to confirmed judgment. Normally, one would say a candidate who wins both NH and SC, and who has outsized polling leads in states upcoming, should be close to a shoo-in. But the adamant opposition of Republican establishment figures, and the possibility of their rallying around one candidate to try and wrest the nomination away from Trump, is at least still an active possibility.

Which in a sense makes the down-ballot finish more significant for the moment than Trump's victory. Rubio is getting a ton of fluffing for finishing BARELY ahead of Cruz – less than .2% -- and you can hardly miss the establishment's signal that everyone else should step out of the way and hope that Robot Marco can knock off Trump one-on-one (nor the press' practically out-loud declaration that they'll go easy on him/sell him as "moderate" if that happens). Bush, obviously, went along with this scenario, but I don't see why the others would. Though it's hard to see a path for Cruz to actually get the nomination at this point (SC was a prime state he should have won), he can ask, with perfect reason, why he should get out in favor of Rubio when he's 1) actually won something and 2) finished ahead of Rubio 2 of 3 times, and only missed the third by a whisker. And Kasich can rightly claim that he gave SC a pass, concentrating on some of the Northern & Midwestern states, where what remains of centrist GOPers still dwells, and that he should be able to compete for their votes in the next several weeks. (And, while no Republican at this point can pass for an actual moderate, Kasich has at least a few positions that make him the more likely choice for that designation than Rubio, who's just a teabagger in disguise.) The only one you can make a compelling case should drop out is Carson, but that wouldn't help the establishment cause, as his voters are more likely to go to Trump or Cruz.

So…lots more activity ahead there. Super Tuesday could be decisive in either making Trump unstoppable, giving Cruz a second wind, or making Rubio the sole alternative he -- and so many others -- desperately wish him to be.

[criddic3]

Obama could make a recess appointment. Eisenhower did in 1956 with Justice Brennan, so there is precedent.

The Senate would still have to confirm his choice. Brennan's nomination was controversial for a time, but Brennan was confirmed by voice vote on March 19, 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J ... nfirmation

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere ... ations.htm

[taki15]

How about re-appointing Sandra Day O'Connor with a pledge that she will retire once again when a replacement is appointed by the next president?

I thought about that too. But liberals are better served with a 4-4 split court that affirms by default the circuit courts' decisions because these courts are stacked with Democratic appointments.
Besides that why should Obama compromise about doing his constitutional duty?

Obama could make a recess appointment. Eisenhower did in 1956 with Justice Brennan, so there is precedent.

I doubt Obama would just make a recess appointment like Eisenhower did without attempting to get a nominee through the normal process first, but if the Senate drags its feet as they are likely to do, he just might.

That's impossible to do because Republicans keep the senate from recessing by holding pro forma sessions.

[Big Magilla]

Obama could make a recess appointment. Eisenhower did in 1956 with Justice Brennan, so there is precedent.

I doubt Obama would just make a recess appointment like Eisenhower did without attempting to get a nominee through the normal process first, but if the Senate drags its feet as they are likely to do, he just might.

[criddic3]

For what it's worth around here, there was another debate last night for the Republican Primary voters. This time it took place in South Carolina, where the vote takes place next Saturday.

Much squabbling ensued, which made it tough for some of the candidates to stand out. However, Marco Rubio did manage to have a solid enough night that he may have turned the page after a bad New Hampshire debate (which led to a disappointing showing in that primary a few days later). Similarly, Ted Cruz held his own in several heated exchanges. Kasich didn't do himself any harm, though he is not expected to have broad appeal in the state.

Ben Carson, while getting slightly more speaking time than he did in the previous round, won't change anyone's mind about his ultimate chances. I think he may drop out by next Sunday, after the vote.

The one person who may have seriously hurt himself was Donald Trump. His attacks on former President Bush will probably not play well with Republicans there, where Bush is still popular. In fact, he's still pretty popular with the party overall, so it's really strange that he made that move.

*****

On the Supreme Court:

I understand the apprehension from Republicans on Obama having this opportunity, but it is within his rights to make a nomination and hope that the process can be done in time. However, we know that it is not an easy process, and it is a presidential election year. There is the possibility that it gets dragged out. This is particularly true if the president chooses an ultra-liberal nominee. I think he is smart enough to see that would not work in his favor. This whole scenario makes an already unusual election cycle more interesting.

[Big Magilla]

How about re-appointing Sandra Day O'Connor with a pledge that she will retire once again when a replacement is appointed by the next president?

[OscarGuy]

Obama has already stated he's not interested. I don't believe that's true for one moment, but a sitting president shouldn't be looking towards what he'll do after until he's doing what he has to do.

Yes, the GOP has said they won't allow a vote, but having no Justice on the Supreme Court for over 340 days won't sit well with most Americans. There will eventually be pushes to confirm someone, especially if Obama puts forth an incredibly accomplished nominee.

[Sonic Youth]

Hopefully it makes every Democrat, no matter how disappointed they are that their preferred candidate wasn't chosen, determined to get to the polls in November to elect a Democratic president and Senate.

This may turn out to be our Bashar al-Assad moment. Yes, Scalia was really bad. But I'm worried that it may have been better to keep the bad guy alive for another year, rather than face the chaotic fuckall that's gonna happen in congress as a result of his death. Just you wait...

[taki15]

Hopefully it makes every Democrat, no matter how disappointed they are that their preferred candidate wasn't chosen, determined to get to the polls in November to elect a Democratic president and Senate.

Unless the GOP wins the presidential election, this era of right-wing dominance of the Court is over. Most lower courts already have a non-conservative majority, and, should the GOP refuse to confirm a successor to Scalia this year (probability: 1000%), 4-4 ties will revert to the lower court rulings. This is a huge development, and makes this election even more crucial than it seemed before.

Taegan Goddard just argued on twitter that Hillary should pledge to nominate Obama if she is elected president. That way he says she will accomplish most of her political goals at once.

[Mister Tee]

Hopefully it makes every Democrat, no matter how disappointed they are that their preferred candidate wasn't chosen, determined to get to the polls in November to elect a Democratic president and Senate.

Unless the GOP wins the presidential election, this era of right-wing dominance of the Court is over. Most lower courts already have a non-conservative majority, and, should the GOP refuse to confirm a successor to Scalia this year (probability: 1000%), 4-4 ties will revert to the lower court rulings. This is a huge development, and makes this election even more crucial than it seemed before.

[Big Magilla]

I don't think it changes everything, but it makes the stakes higher. The Republicans are already saying there's no way Obama will get a Supreme Court nominee through the Senate.

[Aceisgreat]

Is it overdramatic to think that Scalia kicking the bucket changes everything?