Kay Steiger on the generational/women’s vote issue:
What does that mean now?
It's difficult to see how these generational divides will be reconciled. One of the candidates finally winning the nomination will put the argument to rest. At least temporarily.
And as ugly as the primary fight is getting, no matter who emerges victorious this time around, both candidates are indicating they look forward to working with the other once this fight is over. There will be a Democratic nominee, and then the question will be about the differences between the two parties in how they tackle issues of feminism, race, sexuality, and class — not within the parties.
Until then, each side will firmly stake out their position as we march through the primary season. Ultimately, the voters will decide who wins the argument.
The press, however, isn’t waiting.
Andrew Prokop:
But a campaign needs to define its opponent — to tell a simple story about why someone shouldn't vote for him or her. And together, all these arguments from Clinton end up sounding like a muddle. They don't paint one clear picture of Sanders — indeed, they often contradict each other. Is he too liberal, not liberal enough, or just as liberal as Clinton?
That's why, after a two-hour debate where Clinton flitted back and forth between all the criticisms listed above, I was surprised to hear that in her closing statement she finally delivered a clear, easy-to-understand explanation for why Democratic primary voters shouldn't support Sanders:
But here's the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single issue country.
Without asserting that it will work, I expect to hear more of this.
Media consensus is a debate win for Hillary, but nowhere near a knockout blow or by a large amount. And nothing about the debate is going to change minds. Only a Rubio-sized gaffe does. The usual debate result is just reinforcement of previously held beliefs.
Scott Clement:
The lesson from the first two contests is that either candidate can reasonably claim they have the advantage going forward. Sanders can argue his ability to match the longtime front-runner in Iowa and defeat her in a state she won eight years ago indicates his support is on the rise and will overwhelm her — like Barack Obama in 2008. Clinton can argue Iowa and New Hampshire’s overwhelmingly white and liberal electorates are tailor-made to Sanders’s message. Clinton, the thinking goes, will dominate in states with larger African American and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic populations, among whom she receives greater support.
Neither candidate should feel too comfortable in those rationales, though, since it’s unclear how much Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire differ from those in the remaining 48 states and three territories left to vote. There’s little doubt that Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire are politically unique — both are far more white, and New Hampshire is far less religious and more politically liberal. It’s also a state that borders Sanders’s home of Vermont, adding a potential favorite next-door-neighbor element into the mix.
But demographic generalizations oversimplify efforts to project the first two states into the future. Put more plainly: The demographic splits we see in national polls didn't match what we saw in the only two states that have actually voted.
Michelle Goldberg:
I kept a mental list of every disappointing thing Hillary Clinton had ever done, from supporting welfare reform to voting for the Iraq war to co-sponsoring a Senate bill to ban flag-burning. I wrote article after article inveighing against the idea that Clinton was a feminist standard-bearer. In fact, Iargued, she exemplified “a phenomenon seen in many developing and crisis-ridden countries: the great man's wife or daughter promising to continue his legacy.” I was livid when older feminists like Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and Linda Hirshman denigrated the young feminists supporting Obama. “If feminism equaled supporting Hillary Clinton, I'm not the only one who wouldn't want anything to do with it,” I sniffed.
It is strange, then, to find myself, eight years later, not only rooting for Clinton, but feeling exasperated by her left-wing critics. I know their case against Clinton. I agree with a lot of it. I worry about what Clinton’s many flaws would mean for a potential presidency. Now, however, watching her be rejected by young people swept up in an idealistic political movement, I feel sadness instead of glee.
Partly, this is because circumstances have changed. The Clinton of 2008 was running for her husband’s third term, touting her record as first lady as a qualification. Since then, she’s carved out a distinct record as secretary of state. She is running as a continuation of the Obama administration; the fact that she’s married to Bill Clinton is almost immaterial.
James Hohmann with more expected rhetoric:
-- Clinton was relentless about injecting POTUS into every issue that came up:
On health care: “You know, before it was called Obamacare, it was called Hillarycare. … I am a staunch supporter of President Obama's principal accomplishment -- the Affordable Care Act -- because I know how hard it was to get that done.”
On criminal justice reform: “There have been some good recommendations about what needs to happen. President Obama's policing commission came out with some. I have fully endorsed those.”
-- HRC also effectively used Obama as a shield to defend herself against Sanders’ attacks:
On taking money from Wall Street: In 2008, Senator Obama “was the recipient of the largest number of Wall Street donations of anybody running on the Democratic side ever,” she replied, yet he still signed Dodd-Frank into law. “So, let's not in any way imply here that either President Obama or myself, would in any way not take on any vested interested, whether it's Wall Street, or drug companies, or insurance companies, or frankly, the gun lobby to stand up to do what's best for the American people,” she said.
First polling post-NH with good news for both candidates: Hillary leads with 46% (especially with Democrats, 13 point lead), Bernie gaining at 39%. Keep in mind independents don’t vote in every primary, though. Trump’s at 44, highest ever in this Trump-friendly poll:
Sanders is the only candidate in the field, in either party, who is seen favorably by a majority of voters.
But Sanders must still make inroads among non-white voters, who play increasingly large roles in states next up on the nominating calendar such as South Carolina, where more than half the Democratic electorate will be African American, and Nevada, where Hispanics dominate. Clinton leads among black voters by a 63 percent to 26 percent margin, and among Hispanics by a 52 percent to 44 percent edge.
Pretty, pretty, pretty good Glenn Thrush debate summary here:
Sanders, by contrast, was passionate, fast on his feet, disciplined and sounded (especially on foreign policy) like every single Nation editorial written in 1989 – which seems to be all the 2016 rage among progressive millennials who like their politics unambiguous and full of comforting coffeehouse rage.
All in all, Clinton did very little to arrest Sanders’ momentum, although she effectively contrasted her command of granular policy with his vague-ish appeals to liberal outrage. She probably won Thursday night’s lively little scrap in Milwaukee, but by an Iowa-sized increment, say 0.25 percent, pending an audit. Here are five takeaways.
…
It wasn’t that Sanders – who met with the Rev. Al Sharpton in Harlem this week – didn’t hit all those same points during the debate; It’s that he views racism through the prism of economic inequality – and Clinton views discrimination as an entirely distinct, and ongoing, problem. And most of the African-American community in South Carolina – one of the most racially polarized states in the union -- agree with her attitude.
Matt Yglesias:
Nothing happened Thursday night that would make a person who previously liked Clinton stop liking her, and if this was your first exposure to That Guy Who Is Running Against Hillary Clinton you wouldn't have been blown away.
Sanders is coming off a very good 10-day run that must be leaving the candidate and his senior staff feeling both exhilarated and exhausted. The result was a dangerously complacent debate performance.
Despite his stellar fundraising and New Hampshire performance, Sanders is still a major underdog who has a limited amount of time to change the dynamic before delegates start getting assigned very quickly. Sanders did nothing to assuage related doubts about his electability and his grasp of foreign policy matters, and didn't add anything new to his well-known critique of Clinton.
Charlie Cook with some nonpartisan CW:
Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
If she runs against a mainstream Republican, her weakness among independents spells trouble.
Janell Ross on something that matters a lot more than your latest snappy attack on the other D candidate:
The situation in Flint is bad. Very, very bad. It is hard-to-believe-this-is-happening-in-America bad, even for people who might not have huge faith in their country's government.
If you doubt that or remain fuzzy on the essential, non-political toll of Flint's water crisis , you really should take a moment and listen to this NPR's storyabout a Flint woman -- wife and mother of two -- who must contemplate the number of bottles of water necessary to cook her family different meals and has notices what she suspects are developmental differences between her older and younger son. She filled her younger son's bottles with Flint's lead-laden tap water during the time that public officials insisted that it was safe.
Celeste Katz:
It's not random. Trump is well-known for spewing venom at those he dislikes or who dislike him, but there are calculations behind his insults.
"I've got to believe that he senses that Bush is the guy in South Carolina who can make a move and establish himself as a candidate down the road and be dangerous," Doug Muzzio, a professor at the Baruch College School of Public Affairs, told Mic.
Since Bush has a chance to make a splash in the Palmetto State, Trump "wants to take him out in South Carolina. He wants to bury him," Muzzio said.