Richard Yeselson with a long and terrific read, ICYMI:
There is no period of American history that so pervasively demonstrated the power of ethno-nationalism to suppress pluralist differences as that following the Russian Revolution, the end of the First World War, and then continuing through much of the 1920s. There are many broad parallels between this era and our own. In both historical moments, there is a rising racial nationalism that takes hold of a significant (and demographically similar) portion of the country. Following the 1920s, Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership during the Depression and a massive labor movement—which, at least, in its ideals (if often not its practice) extolled the social solidarity of Americans of all races, ethnicities, and religions—renewed civic nationalism. So, too, did the total mobilization on behalf of prosecuting the Second World War. But civic nationalism, too, was still flawed by institutional racism, and dependent upon extra-national enemies—first German and Japanese totalitarianism and then Soviet communism—to somewhat unify the American political culture. What might we expect to, first, culminate, and, then, follow, the moment of Trump?
NBC:
Jeb Bush called Donald Trump "a creature of Barack Obama" in the latest example of the former governor's ever-present frustration with the billionaire businessman during an interview with NPR.
"But for Barack Obama, Donald Trump's effect would not be nearly as strong as it is," Bush said.
He’s right, of course, Obama governs while black. And that’s all it takes.
NY Times:
Jeb Bush and his supporters still have a pile of money to spend — remnants of $100 million raised when he seemed early this year to be a sure bet. They have an expansive ground operation in New Hampshire. And allies have just began a new ad campaign in Iowa.
But nothing they have tried so far has lifted Mr. Bush’s terrible poll numbers. And with just four weeks remaining until voting begins, Mr. Bush needs to do something to save his candidacy.
It may be too late: Other campaigns appear to have counted him out altogether. But, in extensive interviews over the past week, aides and key allies to Mr. Bush described a long-shot plan to pull off what seems all but impossible — winning the Republican nomination for president. The plan has six elements:
The carefully thought out plan includes surprising elements like ‘winning’ and not losing’ and ‘getting more votes than that other guy’. Good luck with it, Jeb! It’s been working great so far.
Neil Irwin:
Suppose it is dinnertime, and the phone rings. It is a polite survey taker with a simple question for you: How is the economy doing?
You might answer the question based upon the news stories you’ve seen recently about the latest unemployment rate, or perhaps based on anecdotal observations, such as whether your long-jobless cousin has had any luck finding work.
But a wide range of academic work suggests a different factor that is likely to shape your answer: whether the current occupant of the White House is of your preferred political party.
HuffPost:
WHY IOWA, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND SOUTH CAROLINA MATTER - Keith Gaddie and Kirby Goidel: “On February 1, 2016 the first presidential nominating delegates will be selected, in Iowa. Iowa is the first of the 'trinity' events that start the actual campaign, along with New Hampshire and South Carolina….[O]f the last six open GOP nominations, Iowa correctly picked three winners, New Hampshire four and South Carolina five. The one time all three early states agreed on a nominee was 1980, with Ronald Reagan. [T]he Trinity matters because it creates an early opportunity to seize momentum, demonstrate viability and garner media attention.”
Michael Barbaro:
As the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination enters a crucial stretch, Mr. Rubio and Mr. Christie, two political thoroughbreds who are among their generation’s most naturally gifted politicians, are circling each other in Iowa and New Hampshire, determined to use the intimate, grip-and-grin style of town hall meetings to persuade voters to support them.
But a close-in study of their approach over 48 hours here reveals the strikingly different styles of the rivals, who are under increasing pressure to perform, especially given Senator Ted Cruz’s growing dominance in Iowa.
In a sign of their intensifying competition, Mr. Rubio and Mr. Christie traded unexpectedly stinging insults over the past few days, as Mr. Christie’s standing rose and Mr. Rubio sought to cement his standing as a top-tier candidate. Mr. Christie caustically mocked Mr. Rubio’s spotty voting record in the Senate, saying, “Dude, show up,” and prompting the Florida senator to belittle the New Jersey governor’s own work ethic. “You know, Chris has been missing in New Jersey for half the time,” Mr. Rubio said.
Julia Azari:
The presidential nomination contest — especially on the Republican side — has dominated our attention, but the Republican Party in Congress is, as I've argued, part of the same story. Some of our political science theories about Congress helped to illustrate how the contest for who would succeed John Boehner as speaker of the House emerged the way it did.
Yet it is probably safe to say that most observers, political scientists included, did not see the situation coming — Boehner's resignation, Kevin McCarthy's withdrawal from the speaker's race, and even the vacuum that emerged until Paul Ryan agreed to take the job. There's nothing shocking about the fact that a stochastic human element is at play in politics. But the speaker saga is a good reminder of all that is unpredictable in political life.
The presidential race has also, to say the least, been a reminder of complexity and contingency. To some extent, nearly all thoughtful commentators, scholarly and otherwise, have been caught with our prediction pants down over Trump's staying power. But the theoretical perspective that has taken the most abuse, perhaps unfairly, is the idea that party elites control the process — the theory put forth in The Party Decides.
The point here isn't to go back over the debate that's unfolded over the past two months — there are plenty of blog posts and tweets to illustrate the back and forth among political scientists and journalists. Instead, I think some of this debate illustrates what can be lost in translation when we attempt to bring academic perspective to debates.
Politico:
White House hopeful Marco Rubio snagged a big-name endorsement this week from Trey Gowdy, the popular South Carolina congressman leading the House investigation of the Benghazi attack.
But the boost for Rubio could mean trouble for Gowdy back in Washington. Democrats are already pouncing, saying it shows Gowdy is not the politically disinterested inquisitor he’s portrayed himself to be throughout his months-long look into the 2012 attack, an investigation that’s scrutinized Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state.
Duh.
Erica Grieder:
Some Republican operatives, [Jeff} Greenfield reports, are considering a particularly dramatic response. Trump himself has indicated, at several points, that he might run as a third-party candidate if the Republican Party denies him the nomination. Those threats have some resonance, because an independent Trump wouldn’t have to skim off many Republican voters to effectively doom the GOP nominee in the general. But the same would be true if Trump himself is the nominee. The only difference between the two scenarios is that Trump is self-obsessed, prone to snits and grudges, and has never shown the slightest concern for how his histrionics might affect other people. By contrast, someone like Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney would pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions. A third-party run would likely guarantee Clinton’s election, and a coordinated defection among party insiders might lead to the end of the Republican Party as we know it.
But if Trump somehow becomes the Republican nominee, I think Republicans need to take the risk. By doing so they might destroy their party, but Trump might destroy the country. Any party that would seriously nominate such a person for president is a party that should be put out to pasture, if not sent straight to the glue factory. Since June, Trump has caused more harm than most politicians manage in a lifetime. And if he had the power of the presidency? A few sweet nothings from Vladimir Putin and Trump would be tripping all over himself to give Alaska back to Russia.
Trump’s sheer awfulness has already made it virtually impossible for me to make fun of Obama. It surely casts the relative risks of a Clinton presidency in a different light. She likely wouldn’t repeal Obamacare, but she can hardly make it worse.
Also a great read.