We've reached the sparse and arid part of the primary calendar, which means that instead of another multi-state Tuesday, the political world is now focused solely on the Badger State. This follows last week, when (gasp!) no state voted on Tuesday, and will be followed by another two-week gap, before New York weighs in.

Because of the singular nature of the primary results tonight, the temptation in the media is to give far too much weight to what happens tonight in terms of the effect on the overall race. We'll get to all of that in a moment, but first (as always) we've got to update my scoreboard.

The previous round of primaries was a three-state weekend night for the Democrats (Republicans sat this one out). This time around, I was too pessimistic in feeling the Bern, as I correctly called Washington and Alaska for Bernie Sanders, but was mistaken in predicting Hillary Clinton would win a surprise upset in Hawai'i. That didn't happen, and Bernie swept the night.

This gives me a 2-for-3 score for the night. When added in to the running totals, my percentages didn't change (the adjustments were too small to move the numbers), so I wound up with the following:

Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 25 for 34 -- 74%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 29 for 39 -- 74%
Total overall correct picks: 54 for 73 -- 74%.

With that out of the way, let's take a look at tonight's matchups. And seeing as how we only have one state to call this time around, we're going to give each party their own section heading.

Continue Reading »

Obama Above Water Once Again

President Obama made a big breakthrough in public opinion polling in March, one that is (for once) pretty obvious in his chart. For the first time since May, 2013, Obama's average job approval number for last month was higher than his average disapproval. Take a look at this month's new chart -- it's pretty easy to see how big a deal this is, even on the overall chart of his entire time in office.

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

March, 2016

Continue Reading »

I'm going to start this week's column by apologizing for it, up front. This is because I know it is going to be a weak and wooly-headed column today. I already know this because I myself am getting sick -- I woke up with flu symptoms, complete with the usual weakness and fuzzy thinking. I considered just punting altogether on today's column, but am feeling slightly better now, so I'm going to make the attempt. But it's going to be a pretty poor attempt, I'll warn you of that from the get-go. It will probably not be anywhere near as long as usual, for which some of you might actually be thankful (I do tend to ramble on, every Friday). One last warning -- normally, on such an auspicious date, I have lots of fun writing a piece of satire and then at the end stick in an "April Fools!" But I'm not going to do that today, which I'll explain further in the talking points section.

Normally, I would begin with an overview of the week in politics, but I really don't have the energy to do all the research that entails. Luckily for me, it was a fairly quiet week in the political world, with (for once!) no primaries at all after last Saturday's voting. Next week, all eyes will be on Wisconsin, where Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz seem to be up in the polls. Hopefully by Tuesday I'll be feeling well enough to cover the Badger State primaries.

So while Donald Trump said several outrageous things this week (as usual), and there was plenty of shocked reactions to them (both faux and real), we're going to ignore all of that and instead just present one interesting tidbit of news that may make some headlines tomorrow (or maybe not, considering the type of coverage the subject usually gets from the media).

Continue Reading »

I'm pleased to announce that ChrisWeigant.com is applying for press credentials for both national political conventions this year. Longtime readers of the site will remember that I (and my lovely wife, whose blogs also appeared in the Irish Times) attended the 2012 Democratic National Convention, but seeing as how the level of political excitement this year (in both parties) seems almost unparalleled, this year we really want to see what both parties have to offer, in person.

National conventions are, in modern times, heavily-scripted affairs which often resemble nothing so much as an extended campaign advertisement. This year, obviously, will be quite different. In both the Republican and Democratic national primaries, there is a real fight being waged over the fundamental direction the parties will chart in the future. While every four years political wonks dream of "open" or "brokered" conventions (being political wonks, even our dreams are wonky...), in 2016 we might actually see one on the Republican side. Even if the Democratic nominee is known before the convention, however, there will still be a big rift in the party which will need some serious mending before the general election campaign begins in earnest. Whether this can successfully be done or not should become evident at the convention itself. Whatever happens, it should prove to be more exciting than the 2012 Democratic National Convention, when Barack Obama ran unopposed for his second term in office. Both conventions will no doubt be fascinating in their own ways, in fact -- which is why we're applying for press credentials for both.

Continue Reading »

Anderson Cooper just made some news, by asking all three Republican candidates for president whether they'd honor their previous pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee -- no matter who won. None of the three candidates now say they'll honor their loyalty pledge, although two of them tried to weasel out of even giving a straight answer. Personally, I can't decide which is more bizarre, the whole spectacle of a party loyalty oath in the first place, or the news that all three Republicans seem to have set a new world speed record by breaking a big campaign promise -- not after getting elected, and not while pivoting to the middle after becoming the nominee, but before the primary season is even over.

The oath, of course, was nothing more than a gimmick in the first place, directed at one candidate alone. All the Republican National Committee really wanted was a signature on the following: "I, Donald Trump, after my inevitable flame-out on the campaign trail, pledge not to attempt a third-party run and instead will support the eventual Republican nominee, which (of course) will not be me." That was deemed too personal, so they made all their candidates sign a generic pledge not to do so, to preserve the appearance of fairness.

Continue Reading »

I wrote the following exactly eleven months ago, when Bernie Sanders announced his run for the presidency. I'm running it again today, for two reasons. The first is that I am otherwise occupied, with putting together my applications for press passes for both national conventions (wish me luck). So I was going over a lot of old columns, looking for ones I could cite. The second reason is why this particular article leapt out at me is that it is pretty prophetic in seeing clearly the concept of a how a Bernie Sanders campaign effort would be run. The biggest thing I missed was the fact that Bernie would be the first Jewish president, instead of just "another old white guy." But while not every word in it came true, I think I did a fairly good job of predicting the overall dynamics of the race as it has played out. So again, apologies for the re-run, but here's what I had to say about Sanders, from the very beginning.

Originally published April 29, 2015

We've had a President Jimmy and a President Ronnie, so why not a President Bernie?

That was my first thought on hearing the news that Senator Bernard ("Bernie") Sanders is going to formally announce his candidacy for president tomorrow. Often, first thoughts are not the most profound, as I seem to have proved here. But upon reflection, a deeper meaning can be teased out of my sophomoric response: why not a President Bernie? I'm pretty sure there will be many in the media who laugh Sanders off as some sort of "not serious" candidate, and attempt to pigeonhole Sanders into the role of court jester to Hillary Clinton: there to amusingly point out foibles, but in a way that cannot be taken seriously. This is a mistake. Bernie Sanders is a serious candidate, no matter what his chances at the ballot box may ultimately be. He cares deeply about the issue of inequality, and he is not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. You can question how viable a candidate Sanders will be, but no matter what the answer to that turns out to be, Sanders will be a serious candidate. The issues he will raise on the campaign trail deserve serious discussion and consideration, from not only Hillary Clinton but also from the media themselves.

Continue Reading »

Bernie Sanders just had a very good week. Six states voted in the past week, and Bernie won five of them. Overwhelmingly. Bernie got over 70 percent of the vote in four states, and over 80 percent in Alaska. All in all, a pretty good week. His delegate count has now hit four digits, with superdelegates added in. That's all pretty impressive, but rather than focusing on his chances for actually winning the Democratic presidential nomination this time around (which are still pretty low, even with that impressive string of victories), instead what intrigues me is how the movement of Democratic populism seems to be growing. If Sanders falls short this time around, the next time a populist runs they may actually succeed. Bernie has already gone a long way towards transforming the Democratic Party away from its embrace of economic centrism (the Bill Clinton and Democratic Leadership Council era) towards a much more people-centered party.

Continue Reading »

That really should be "Copulating Rodents, Batman!" for full effect. Or it should just come right out and use the original term being euphemized. But somehow we couldn't quite bring ourselves to use either one of those in our title today.

Confused? Join the club. The Republican presidential nomination race has previously devolved to the level of an elementary school playground (penis-measuring in a national debate), and has now risen to at least high school (if not a college frat house) with the vicious battle going on between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz over who can insult each other's wives the most. This morning, "the beans" may have actually been spilled, as the National Enquirer is now reporting not on Ted Cruz's wife, but instead on his (alleged) five girlfriends. I'd say "we're down the rabbit hole now, folks," but there is in fact a better rodent-based metaphor, from the dim and distant past. Here is the full explanation, from Cruz himself:

It is a story that quoted one source on the record: Roger Stone, Donald Trump's chief political adviser. It is attacking my family. And what is striking is Donald's henchman, Roger Stone, had for months been foreshadowing that this attack was coming. It's not surprising that Donald's tweet occurs the day before the attack comes out. And I would note that Mr. Stone is a man who has 50 years of dirty tricks behind him. He's a man for whom a term was coined for copulating with a rodent. Well, let me be clear: Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him.

The Washington Post article then helpfully explains: "The copulation reference was to a term coined to describe Stone and other political allies of Richard Nixon who spread rumors and foiled the campaign events of rivals." Another of these Nixon allies was none other than Karl Rove, a man George W. Bush called "turd blossom." But let's not get distracted. Back to the term in question, which is (warning -- avert your eyes if you are easily offended): "ratfucking." Originally the term had nothing to do with rodents, as the "rat" was short for "rations" -- it was a military term to describe soldiers who would comb though the rations packages and steal all the good stuff while leaving the less-tasty stuff behind for everyone else. But a rat is a rat, in the world of politics. And here is where we find ourselves, in the historic (or perhaps "infamous" will be more popular for future historians) election season of 2016. Call it the pest-control election, and you won't be far from the reality.

Continue Reading »

Shouldn't that be "caucii"? Well, maybe not.

You'll have to excuse me sounding a little loopy, but we all tend to get that way in the brutal middle slog of the primary season. Around 30 states have voted on both sides, with no clear national winners yet. The delegate-counting has reached a frenzy, and you'd think every state would count at this point. The pollsters, however, obviously do not think this. I'll get to all of that in a moment, however, as the first thing I need to do is update my record.

Continue Reading »

You'll have to forgive me for using such a lethal metaphor in that title, but I did not actually come up with the comparison myself -- that dubious honor goes to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. One month after he ended his own presidential bid, Graham addressed the question of which GOP frontrunner he could support, in pretty graphic fashion: "If you nominate Trump and Cruz I think you get the same outcome. Whether it's death by being shot or poisoning, does it really matter?"

Continue Reading »