My Thoughts on the DNC

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

Thanks to the DNC this week, I got in very little writing, so we're going to do something I never do and kind of do an "article dump" today of all of the articles I meant to write this week, but instead got sucked into the DNC.  So read these at your leisure (but hopefully read them all if you are interested), but my hope is to do a 4-5 article Saturday.  

We're going to, in fact, start with the DNC, which I watched a shockingly large amount of this past week.  I always catch the DNC, but it depends on the year whether or not I get super sucked in or not, and this year was maybe the best example of the DNC I've ever seen, so I was into it the whole time.

I think part of it was the excitement.  A month ago (and yes, it was just over a month ago-can you believe that?) we were looking at a very different DNC.  Biden was floundering after a horrendous debate performance, and was being asked by high-profile Democrats like Nancy Pelosi to drop out of the race.  We were down badly in the polls, and it looked like, for the first time since 1984, we were going to go into the convention as clear underdogs for November, with little reason for hope.

But then Biden dropped out, and the last month has been a flawless rollout of the Kamala Harris for President campaign.  Harris is more practiced, more disciplined, and less silly than she was in 2020; it's ironic in a campaign that is literally about "bringing the joy back" that Harris herself has had to make herself less joyful, her trademark cackle laugh nearly banished from her interviews and speeches (I say this as someone else who has a famous cackle laugh-I feel her pain on this one).  After a lot of media swirl, she picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running-mate, a choice that some initially criticized for its lack of an obvious swing state impact, but honestly-the campaign could not have chosen better if they tried.  Walz has proven a superstar even people who have followed his career for years couldn't have predicted, and watching him alongside figures like Mark Kelly & Josh Shapiro at the DNC...it's clear Walz was the right choice.

This all led to a really moving and at times bittersweet DNC.  Like I said, I've watched at least some of the DNC since 1992, when I was eight (I remember seeing Clinton's immortal "I still believe in a place called Hope" which, in my opinion, is still the finest single line I've ever witnessed in politics), and I've seen really good DNC's before (1992, 2008, & 2012 all come to mind), but I've never seen a DNC with this kind of production value.  For a group of speeches that had to be completely rewritten and replanned in the past couple of weeks, it's insane how well this went.

Let's examine the evidence, shall we?  First, Harris & Walz, both in completely different roles than they would've been at this DNC on July 1st (her as VP, him as DGA Chair) aced their speeches-home runs, wonderful, totally did exactly what they needed to do.  But the rest of the DNC is where the real marvel was.  For starters, we saw vulnerable Democrats who wouldn't have been within 50 miles of Joe Biden after that debate clamoring to be a part of this.  There was a lot of press about Jon Tester & Jacky Rosen not being able to make it, but lots of vulnerable Democrats like Elissa Slotkin, Ruben Gallego, & Pat Ryan were all speaking on the main stage, and I spotted more vulnerable Democrats like Angie Craig & Jahana Hayes repeatedly on the camera in the audience.  There was no sense that tossup district Democrats were trying to avoid the DNC, which was definitely a thing that Biden's reelection campaign was experiencing.  That's entirely due to Harris's improved standings in the polls.

We also saw the future of the party on display.  Early on, we saw speeches from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Jasmine Crockett that went viral on social media, announcing these two young women (who have been some of the most impressive stars in recent years out of the most recent Congresses), land well.  Both of them are likely to get bigger opportunities at the DNC in the future after that.  We saw the crop of new governors like Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, & JB Pritzker take the stage, with Harris (unlike Trump) not afraid of putting people onstage that threaten to outshine her...partially because they didn't (Harris didn't give the best speech of the DNC, but she was good enough no one's going to point that out save for apparently me).  We also saw better celebrities.  Though no Beyonce or Taylor Swift (as was rumored at one point...I suspect the Harris campaign gets her next to both before the year is over), but we still had a surprise appearance by Oprah Winfrey on top of scheduled guest spots by Stevie Wonder, Kerry Washington, Eva Longoria, P!nk, & Kenan Thompson (for comparison, the only big celebrity name that Trump got was Hulk Hogan).

President Bill Clinton (D-AR)

And perhaps most importantly, we saw the past of the Democratic convention.  Trump's coronation was marked by the lack of virtually any major Republicans from before the Trump Era.  Part of this is that most of them are gone at this point or publicly disgraced (Dennis Hastert, looking at you).  But George & Laura Bush, Dick & Lynne Cheney, widows of John McCain or Bob Dole, Paul Ryan or John Boehner, Mitt Romney...none of them were on that stage for the DNC.  Mitch McConnell showed up and got booed (for the record, the only person booed at the DNC that I saw was Kathy Hochul, which feels about right, and that includes Republicans like Adam Kinzinger & Stephanie Grisham, both of whom endorsed Kamala Harris-you didn't see any of that sort of crossover attempt at the RNC), and he was the only pre-Trump figure to make the effort.

Meanwhile, the Democrats had both the Clintons, both the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and both the Bidens take the stage.  Al Gore & John Kerry were spotted near the event, and both Jesse Jackson & Elizabeth Warren were obviously moved by the rapturous applause they got from the stadium.  Scions of major Democratic political families like Jack Schlossberg (grandson of President Kennedy), Jason Carter (grandson of President Carter), and Cecile Richards (daughter of Governor Ann Richardson) were given moments in the spotlight.  This was a celebration of the old-and-the-new.  Some clucked at this ("who really wants to hear from Bill Clinton again?"), which in hindsight looks moronic.  The Democrats showing a sense of stability, a sense of movement forward, is really something.  It also led to some of the week's most moving speeches.  Michelle Obama gave the best speech of her career and of the week (not hyperbole, I stand behind this as truly her best, and that's a high bar to cross given what a gifted orator she is), going from the high-minded hope of 2016 to it's-time-to-fight-back of 2024.  Bill Clinton, though a bit torn up by age at this point (he talks slower and quieter than he did in his heyday), still gave a moving soliloquy that, along with Michelle Obama's, told Democrats that this isn't done yet-and they need to be grownups as Harris & Walz enter the real world of the campaign, and not panic when they inevitably stumble.

It was extra moving because Bill Clinton pointed out the obvious here when he said (and I cried when he admitted it), "I don't know how many more of these I have left."  It's true-Clinton admitted at the start of his speech that he was the oldest man in the history of his family.  We have had so much focus on Joe Biden's age we forget that Jill (not to mention Bill & Hillary, Jesse Jackson, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, & Nancy Pelosi) are not young anymore either.  It is very atypical for a former First Lady to appear after her husband is done with politics-we have been blessed that Hillary & Michelle continued to take that perch and make the case to a base that loves them.  It's hard not to feel like this is one of those Olympics where a lot of longtime favorites admit that this is probably their last, and that it's time for us to put our hearts into the new names...even if they will never feel quite the same.  The DNC is always better than the RNC (we get better celebrities, and we have better union help on it, and unions represent better quality), but this one was especially poignant because it captured a sense of "let's win this, one last time" in a way that 2016 and 2020 never could.

The Report (2019)

Film: The Report (2019)
Stars: Adam Driver, Annette Bening, Jon Hamm, Jennifer Morrison, Matthew Rhys, Maura Tierney
Director: Scott Z. Burns
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Every year, I try and try and to see as many movies during this time frame as I can, and I always fail.  The Oscar season is a cruel mistress, with so many films attempting to come to light from Halloween through Christmas, and especially after Thanksgiving.  This process doesn't just leave me at-a-loss-it also causes a lot of movies that I might otherwise have caught in July to be missed or put onto my endless Netflix queue.  A film like The Report, with a stellar cast and a serious subject, is a film that walks a fine line by releasing itself in November-it could either become a major Oscar contender, a film that expands its core audience of devoted cinephiles and politically-minded theatergoers, or could just stay within that niche audience.  Considering I literally caught this movie on the last night it was out (it only played in one theater in my area, a major metropolitan market for movies), and I nearly missed it as a result, I suspect it will stay a niche picture, one that will be a struggle to name-check even by February.  The question for today is-is that the fate this picture deserved?

(I'm not issuing a spoiler alert because you should've paid attention when this was happening, and if you didn't that's why things like this go unnoticed) The movie follows the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into torture tactics that took place in the Bush administration in the years following 9/11.  The film centers on Dan Jones (Driver), a handsome, smart, driven man who works for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Bening) on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and is investigating the "enhanced interrogation tactics" of the Bush administration.  Dan becomes a man driven by desire to uncover the truth and bring it to light, to the point where at times it feels like his lack of confidence in Feinstein to be able to get past both the Republicans and the Bush & Obama White Houses (both of whom do not want this to see the light of day in the film) might drive him to break the law.  In real life both administrations were critical of the findings of the report, calling them partisan and inaccurate.  The movie flashes back to the torture that was chronicled in the report, as well as Feinstein & Jones' struggle to have the report see the light of day, which eventually it does, just days before Feinstein loses her position as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The film is shocking even if you followed this report's release in 2014 and what had already been released about the behavior of the CIA in regard to torturing suspects, many of whom should not have warranted capture.  The film picks-and-chooses when it uses real-life figures like Feinstein or Jon Hamm's Denis McDonough, and when they fictionalize what are obviously real-life people for legal reasons (Maura Tierney is clearly meant to be playing Gina Haspel), but it's more-or-less accurate in what happened.  It's hard to watch, particularly for those Democrats who have turned a blind eye to the failings of the Obama administration (especially in the wake of the more egregious sins of the Trump administration), but it's fair to say that while the Obama administration stopped enhanced interrogation basically the moment they took office, people like McDonough and John Brennan warred publicly & privately with people like Feinstein, as well as other figures such as Mark Udall & Sheldon Whitehouse (both featured in this film), and the bravery that resulted in these few senators standing up to their own party in the White House to get this report into the public eye.

All of this sounds great, and if The Report simply serves as a reminder of how senators can hold their own party in the White House accountable until they do the right thing (HINT HINT) it'd be worth as many people seeing this movie as possible.  However, from a cinematic perspective this film isn't very good, even from a political nerd such as myself.  The torture sequences, and particularly the torturers being portrayed, fall flat and don't have enough connection to the rest of the story other than to have us look on in horror.  Driver finds a determination in the boy scout dealings of Dan Jones, but he offers little insight into this man, and I feel like it's a cop-out to say that someone as intelligent and driven as Jones wouldn't have more of a personality (or at least a sex life).  He's better than Jon Hamm, who seems to be playing the same version of a handsome, line-reading figure of authority in every movie of the past five years.  For all of the criticism of January Jones post-Mad Men, has Hamm done literally anything approaching how good he was as Don Draper, and why is it that Jones gets critically-maligned while he keeps getting chances after under-performing pretty every filmic role he's had (I know why-that was rhetorical)?

Bening is the best part of the movie.  While she doesn't try to imitate Feinstein's distinctive speaking cadences (Feinstein has been in public life the whole time I've followed politics, so I know her voice anywhere, and Bening isn't trying here), she gets her mannerisms down and I loved the thoughtfulness she brings to key scenes.  Feinstein is a senator noted for her caution, someone who frustrates both Democrats & Republicans, but is a serious politician pretty much everyone attributes integrity toward.  The scenes where she tells off McDonough (they give Bening two Oscar moments) are obviously a joy for fans of the actress, but she puts such care even into throwaway lines to Jones that it feels like Bening did her homework.  She's created a woman who has had her comments scrutinized for decades, to the point where she can't say anything without mentally checking how it will be used against her.  If the rest of the film had shown the same level of detail to their character, The Report would have been a worthwhile cinematic affair rather than just an honorable attempt to remind people of how Congress can do the right thing even when it's not politically convenient.

Trump Deserves the Blame

Wednesday was one of the darkest days in American history.  I'm still, quite frankly, in shock.  Not that this happened, because I think it was sadly something we have been warning about for so long with Donald Trump as president that this was becoming inevitable, but because there is a difference between warning about something happened, saying "this violent rhetoric will eventually lead to something truly, unchangeably, terrible" and seeing it actually happen.

We have become so desensitized to such hateful, terrible things in the Trump presidency that perhaps some people weren't shocked yesterday, their cynicism or need-to-be-brave so close to an election makes them numb or flippant to such things, but I'll be honest-I was shook to my core and genuinely curled up into a ball Wednesday night, not wanting to do anything but stay indoors, glued to the news, in a way I can only remember being at a few tragedies in American history.

This week, a terrorist attacked leaders of the party opposed to the President of the United States, people the president has literally described as his "enemy."  Pipe bombs were sent through the mail to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, John Brennan (the package was sent to CNN headquarters), Eric Holder, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, Robert de Niro, and George Soros.  These people are not arbitrary politicians or public figures.  They are two former presidents, a former vice president (who is also the leading Democratic contender for the White House in 2020), a former secretary of state, a former first lady, two sitting congresswomen (one being a former DNC Chair), a former attorney general, a former CIA Director, a major Democratic fundraiser, and a prominent liberal actor.  They are all Democrats or a key member of a Democratic administration, prominent Trump critics, and people that Trump regularly demeans and attacks with vitriolic hate in his stump speeches and on Twitter.

That Trump's hateful, violent speeches have led to actual violence may be inevitable, but it's worth noting that Trump and Republicans like him deserve the blame for what happened this week, and the media needs to lay it at their feet.  Trump, just days ago, praised Rep. Greg Gianforte in a rally in Missoula, MT, calling him "my guy" in reference to Gianforte's assault of a journalist during his campaign last year.  Ted Cruz, just days ago, was talking about how his opponent (Rep. Beto O'Rourke) could share a cell with Hillary Clinton, one of the victims of yesterday's attacks.  And even after Monday's attack, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (the frontrunner to be the next Republican leader in the House after the elections), still had a pinned tweet attacking Mr. Soros on his verified Twitter page even after Soros has received a pipe bomb.

Trump's rhetoric against the media and the protesters has been violent, hateful, and frequently filled with lies, so the fact that CNN was one of those targeted is petrifying considering it is not only an attack on our leaders, but on the first amendment itself that was perpetrated Wednesday.  And yet just days before our nation exercises its most sacred right, that of choosing our leaders, Trump couldn't control his supporters and his mouth for even 24 hours.  After a scripted statement where he called for unity, Trump couldn't admit that his rhetoric is the clearest culprit here.  No, he didn't send those packages, but that all of the people who received them are people who have been outspoken critics of Trump AND are people he regularly lashes out at in speeches, oftentimes with violent language, is no accident.  Trump had the ability yesterday to say "I made a mistake, I need to work to change the discourse and shoulder some of this blame if we are actually going to unify," but he is incapable of doing so.  Trump's rally in Wisconsin Wednesday night proved that, with him blaming the media for the attacks rather than taking any sort of accountability on his own, going back to attacking reporters the same exact day that CNN got a pipe bomb in the mail.  Republican State Sen. Leah Vukmir, herself running for the US Senate in the state, grinned as the crowd chanted "lock her up" rather than trying to counter them on the same day Hillary Clinton (the "her" that they're referring to), was attacked.  That Republican leaders (cause that's what Trump and Vukmir are), can't even go 24 hours without going after Democrats who were violently attacked by a terrorist is unforgivable and frankly is the final alarm that needs to be rung-if you can't see that yesterday was one of America's darkest days, I don't know how to help you.  Think of it this way-if 11 people from the opposition party were attacked in Russia or China, we'd call it a banana republic or refer to that country as unstable.  That's exactly what happened here-don't just get your coffee like usual, pretending "this is just Trump's America", because if we have to normalize what happened this week, this isn't America at all.  We need to vote in 11 days, as if our civil liberties and lives depended on it, because they do.  Democracy cannot stand if our leaders only care about the people who support them, if protection and rights are only bestowed on those who support the president.  This week Donald Trump showed that he only cares about people who agree with him, and is incapable of feeling compassion for those who don't.  Hopefully in 11 days, he sees that those who don't are louder than those that do, because it's the only message that will get through to him.

Southside with You (2016)

Film: Southside with You (2016)
Stars: Tika Sumpter, Parker Sawyers
Director: Richard Tanne
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It's not often you go to a movie that you know by heart and still kind of like it, but that was the case for me recently with Southside with You.  I cannot remember when I first heard the details of the Obama's first date, but for some reason it stuck with me as I recalled most of the moments that happened leading up to the lovely ending of Southside with You.  A film that I never would have anticipated, and which almost worked just as well as a trailer (I recalled thinking during the initial buildup up to "what's his name?" that it felt like it was a fictionalized version of the Obamas life, until the "Barack Obama" moment came up and I said, "huh-who would have thought so soon?"), it's actually pretty solid as a date movie.  There's no new molds being broken here, but I don't think you always need that with a late August movie-Southside with You uses charm and familiarity in the best ways possible.

(Spoilers Ahead) For those who can't tell, Southside with You is a very recent story, that of Michelle Robinson (Sumpter) and Barack Obama's (Sawyers) first date.  The film, told over the course of a single day as the two go from being colleagues (Barack wanting something more, Michelle wanting to remain just friends) to paramours, go shopping for music, eating a picnic, visiting a community event, and even seeing Spike Lee's masterpiece Do the Right Thing.  In between, they don't necessarily fall in love, but you can tell there's something there.  It feels in many ways like some of the best dates you've ever been on, if you've been so lucky to have dates that romantic.

The film offers few surprises.  We know these two end up together because they've been a constant presence in our lives for the past eight years.  If you've heard the story before, there are no surprises even in the way that they go through the date (I'm familiar enough with this story to even know the name of the movie).  But if you have chemistry and charm, you can get a long way in a movie, and Sumpter and Sawyers are really strong together.  Neither of them can be confused with an award-winning performance, but they do have that special magic here that you want out of a romance movie.  They play strongly off of each other, and Sumpter doesn't frequently belabor the point that yes, we all know she decides to spend her life with this handsome man with the dumbo ears and the soaring rhetoric.  There is less effort meant to imitate the eventual incarnations we know from inspiring us (or, in some cases, us loathing them, but in that case I doubt you saw this movie), and more just on finding two people who are falling in love before our lives.

It's not a perfect movie.  It's weirdly simple, and probably suffers from some of the issues that Sully is going to in a few weeks in that it feels like a pretty light idea for a picture.  There are moments in the script that feel lull, particularly the second time that Michelle (it feels so weird to call them by their first names), backs off the idea of the two of them dating, and I rolled my eyes when they saw the partner from their firm while on their date coming out of Do the Right Thing so the film could have a clunky (albeit, probably true-to-life) conversation about the film's racial politics.  What are the odds that guy shows up in that theater on that night in the city of Chicago?  Relatively slim, in my opinion.  But by-and-large it's a really lovely way to spend ninety minutes, and you leave wanting more, which is the sign of a romantic movie done well.  I'm glad these two people found a different way into our lives some twenty years later.

Those were my thoughts-how about yours?  This film has largely migrated out of theaters, but hopefully some of you caught it.  If so, what'd you think?  And what other famous couples do you wish they'd make first date movies about?  Share below!

5 Events That Led to Donald Trump

One of the most fascinating things about watching Donald Trump and the sudden implosion of a major political party (and regardless of his polling numbers, Donald Trump has caused irreparable damage to the Republican brand that is going to be part of its baggage for years to come) is seeing people talk about how Trump couldn't have been predicted.  That he is a moment-in-time, and not something that has been persisting in the electoral process for decades.

The reality is, though, that the ugliness of this election has been subsisting for decades, and both sides in some part (though I'm not taking 50/50 blame here-the Republicans are the ones who actually got around to nominating him, and so they should take the majority of the criticism even if Democrats are not without issue) are responsible for creating a political process that can result in such an odious, flagrantly racist man being the banner-carrier for one of the major parties.  Below I illustrate five incidents that in large part contributed to Trump eventually becoming the Republican nominee that aren't related to the past two years, but instead decades of political dirty maneuvers.

State Rep. Rick McIntyre (R-IN)

1. Indiana's Bloody Eighth (1984)

If there's one moment that truly feels like a catalyst in the fight between Republicans and Democrats over "dirty politics in the modern era" it's probably the deeply contentious battle between Rep. Frank McCloskey (D) and State Rep. Rick McIntyre (R) in Indiana's 8th district in 1984.  The election that year was a contrast to today, when split-ticket ballots aren't nearly as prevalent.  In the district, historically Democratic but a breed of conservative Democrat, President Reagan was winning huge margins, helping the Republicans, while McCloskey, despite having a relatively liberal voting record, was running up strong margins in Evansville.  The result was that at the end of the night, McCloskey was up by only 72 votes.  However, voting irregularities made it seem like McIntyre was up by 34 votes.  After a recount, McIntyre was up by 418 votes, but over 4800 ballots (a really high number for a congressional race) were deemed invalid due to technical reasons.

This was ultimately going to be one of those races where the victor would probably always be in question, but the way in which the result came about was what caused huge ire in the Republican Party against the Democratic majority.  A commission, led by two Democrats and one Republican, recommended throwing out the bulk of the technicality issues, overriding the Secretary of State and the House Republicans who complained about improper interference by the House Democrats.  In the end, McCloskey, despite losing the initial recount, was seated by a 4-vote majority largely along party  line votes, and resulted in a walkout by the House Republicans, who felt they had been robbed of a congressional seat by the House Democrats, who'd improperly inserted themselves into Indiana's election process.  So nasty was this election that it was nicknamed "the Bloody Eighth."  While McCloskey won the 1986 rematch (due to McIntyre making some foibles on the campaign trail and a lack of Reagan's coattails in a midtern), the damage was lasting.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore

2. Bush vs. Gore (2000)

If IN-8 was the appetizer in the meal of partisan distrust in the electoral system, Florida in 2000 was the main course.  You all know the story here, but for those under, say, sixteen who haven't gotten to this portion of their Civics class yet we'll do a paragraph refresher.  In 2000, after a very closely fought battle between Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, most people assumed that we'd have an election of someone whom the country wasn't wild about (neither man was particularly popular).  Early on in the night, Gore appeared to have the election in the bag after taking Florida-the networks even called it for him.  However, later on in the night the networks "uncalled" Florida (a moment they still reference whenever they're being "cautious" on election night), and by the next morning it wasn't clear whether Bush or Gore had won the state, and that it was surely headed to a recount.  Within the space of that recount, accusations of needlessly complicated ballots and election-tampering were already being started, and the recount (and the rules thereof) was headed to the Supreme Court.

Again, like IN-8 in '84, this is probably one of those elections where no one will ever know exactly who won.  Florida in 2000 is one of those reasons why it was so popular in ensuing years to talk about a "paper-trail" for elections, and making ballots simpler because of the ridiculousness of the butterfly ballots potentially costing Al Gore enormously in certain counties.  The problem here was in the way a decision was ultimately reached.

For starters, Gore was denied a manual recount in several counties he was allowed to have a recount in under the law by Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State, who was an appointee of Jeb Bush, the brother of Gore's opponent, setting up an easy route for Democrats to criticize the process as unfair (this is one of those reasons that Secretaries of State should at the very least all be elected, and in a perfect world, probably hold non-partisan offices).  The Florida Supreme Court initially overruled Harris' decision, stating a statewide recount was in order, but the US Supreme Court intervened, resulting in Bush v. Gore, where, along partisan lines, the Supreme Court issued a ruling 5-4 that a statewide recount would not take place, thereby ensuring George W. Bush the state's 25 electoral votes and with that 271 electoral votes, and the White House.

As I mentioned above, it's probably impossible to figure out who actually won this election.  Post-election studies have been done ranging from Bush winning by as high as 1600 votes in a manual statewide recount to Gore winning by 332 votes, depending on how one handles "overvotes" and "chads" (anyone else having a flashback?).  But the fact that Gore's presidential prospects were stopped not by the actual voters in a recount, but instead by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court and a Bush appointee cast a pall on the election, particularly when you consider Gore won the national popular vote.  Suddenly Democrats tended to view the Supreme Court in a poorer light, talking about it as Republicans vs. Democrats, and not as impartial jurists.  Constant jokes and remarks were made in the years following that Gore had actually won the election, something Democrats still will talk about openly today despite, of course, Bush actually being president.  As a result, the Republican vs. Democrat mentality of the third branch of government carried over to this day (just look at Merrick Garland, who would have been unanimously confirmed twenty years ago), and millions of Democrats still feel that they were cheated out of the White House by Republicans not counting their ballots.

3. Judicial Filibusters (2003-05)

Following the 2002 midterms, where the Democrats did poorly and lost the Senate majority, the Republicans started to move forward with a number of Bush judicial appointments that had been stalled by the Democrats, who didn't want to create a more conservative federal bench, particularly in the shadow of Bush v. Gore just a couple of years earlier.  However, Democrats began to filibuster ten nominees to the federal judiciary that they felt were too conservative.  Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott threatened what was coined the "nuclear option:" saying that he would change it so that a simple majority of the Senate would be required to pass through a judicial nominee, as it was largely unprecedented to filibuster a judicial nominee at the time.

Despite losing a net of four seats in the Senate and the White House, the Democrats continued to filibuster these nominees in 2005, and a movement to set in the "nuclear option" to appoint a number of these nominees was set into motion, only to be stopped by the "Gang of 14," a group of moderate senators who found a solution whereby some of the nominees were pushed to a floor vote, and a couple were not allowed to the floor.

This moment proved a couple of things.  For starters, it created an unparalleled moment for the filibuster, essentially making it so that almost any legislation that can make it through the Senate requires sixty votes, a largely unattainable number considering the deeply partisan nature of a number of states (it's difficult to see sixty senators winning, or at the very least a party maintaining that number for very long).  The filibuster in ensuing years would be widely criticized, to the point that the nuclear option would eventually be pulled in 2013, allowing for a simple majority of senators to be able to move judicial nominees through the Senate.  It's likely that this moment will eventually put an end to the filibuster and the "gentlemanly" aspect of the Senate as a body that works together to get things done, as opposed to the more openly partisan House.  It also created a deep animosity between Democrats and Republicans, as Democrats felt that their rights in the minority were being trampled and the Republicans felt that their legitimacy (since they'd just won back-to-back elections) was being impugned since their party's presidential candidate had just won.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)

4. Swift-Boating (2004)

Up until this point I've pointed out institutional issues that led to distrust in the electoral process and loathing of the other party.  In my opinion this led to a race to the base of your party, which allowed for someone like Trump, so easily unacceptable decades earlier, to be the nominee by lambasting a party that the Republicans simply could not see any merit in; however, the final two are perhaps most responsible for the rhetoric of his campaign.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry had put his military service front-and-center in the campaign for the White House.  He was, after all, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, and was competing against someone who had been eligible, but had not fought in the conflict.  It made sense, particularly in light of increasing criticism from the Democratic Party over the Iraq War and our reasons for entering the war, to highlight his military record against President Bush.  This was a tried tactic and presidential candidates from Grant to Eisenhower to Bush Sr. had used it in the past to great aplomb.

However, Kerry's military service was brought into question during the campaign by former military servicemen who had served with Kerry in Vietnam.  The criticisms levied at Kerry in many cases ran contrary to what these men had said about him decades earlier when he wasn't the presidential nominee.  The Swift Boat group that levied these attacks were widely criticized for being false, and were funded by major donors in the Texas Republican Party with strong ties to George W. Bush, even if the ads weren't coming from the official campaign.  As a result, Kerry's reputation was left tarnished, and thanks to campaign finance laws, Bush wasn't able to be directly linked to the attacks.  Coupled with similar attacks two years earlier against Sen. Max Cleland, the Democrats became increasingly irate at the Republican Party for campaign tactics they thought beneath the office of the president, but because Bush actually won the election, the tactics were tacitly rewarded and Kerry's reputation was forever tarnished.

President Barack Obama (D-IL)

5. Obama's Birth Certificate (2008-2011)

Perhaps more than any other controversy on this list, the Obama birth certificate issue has to be considered a direct contributor to Donald Trump's rise to power.  During the height of the 2008 campaign, after receiving criticism from the National Review, who stated Obama should release his birth certificate to squash rumors that he was in fact not born with his original birth name and that he was born in Kenya, the Obama campaign issued a certification of live birth providing evidence that he was indeed born in Honolulu to Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr.  It was an ugly moment in the campaign, but one that largely would have been forgotten had it not been for a persistent group of conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party who rejected the birth certificate's authenticity, of whom Donald Trump became a public member of when he explored a presidential run in 2011.

The reality is, of course, that like the attacks against Kerry in 2004, these had no merit whatsoever.  Every piece of evidence here clearly indicated that the information in the short-form birth certificate was accurate.  However, like 2004, some Republicans were rewarded here by being quiet about the birth certificate or speaking out, because a vocal, active chapter of the party wanted to trumpet these claims, in part because of a deep hatred for President Obama.  In 2011, even after the president released his long-form birth certificate in hopes of quenching these attacks, the fervor continued to grow, with Donald Trump being rewarded with free press by continuing to be a conspiracy theorist about the president's country of birth.

The effects here were twofold-with Trump, embraced by Mitt Romney on the campaign trail (thus tacitly allowing Romney to gain credence with the birther movement, whom he needed to win), in the spotlight he had a core constituency for a 2016 campaign, and it was in the ugliest section of the Republican Party.  It also was hard to miss the fact that the Republican Party (first Romney, and later and more brazenly, Trump) gained points off of a racist charge with no bearing in fact.  No one had brought into issue, for example, Sen. John McCain's claim as a natural-born citizen, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone.  The fact that the first African-American presidential candidate (and later president) of a major party was attacked in this way spoke to the ugliness of the campaigns against him.  The attacks levied against him in the birth certificate (not only that he wasn't American, but also that his father wasn't whom he proclaimed he was or that his middle name wasn't Hussein, but Muhammad) spoke to racial and religious prejudice that spilled into policy initiatives for the GOP in 2016 with Trump's campaigns against Muslims and Mexican immigrants on the campaign trail.

All of this is to say that the nastiness of our current political process is nothing new, but it is definitely getting worse.  Hopefully this election cycle we see, at the very least, a repudiation of some of it through a Trump loss, so that he doesn't become a sixth name on this list leading to whatever lower bar we have in store in the future.

Ranting On...Merrick Garland and the Republicans Supreme Court Battle

And with that, we enter a new phase in the political year.  This morning, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the Susan Lucci of the Supreme Court, to be the nominee to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia.  As one would expect from this president, the history of the moment was well-observed.  You could see it in the way that Merrick Garland teared up at the beginning of his speech, as well as President Obama's pointed quoting of a current U.S. Senator who is likely to oppose the nomination on simply political grounds.

For the reality is, if you were to remove election year politics from the equation, Merrick Garland would be an incredibly easy nominee to confirm.  A pedigreed judge and the Chief Justice on the second-highest court in the land, his credentials are impeccable.  A Harvard-educated lawyer, attorney during the Oklahoma City bombings, and a jurist on the DC Court of Appeals (which has been the launching pad for Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg), Garland has been floated as a potential Democratic nominee for at least ten years.  I remember frequently reading that either he or Sotomayor would be the appointee of a President Kerry, and Obama has interviewed Garland twice before to succeed Justices Stevens and Souter.  Senators such as Orrin Hatch have repeatedly called him an excellent judge, and fought hard for him to get his current appointment.

However, the Republican Party has become entrenched, and Garland seems incredibly unlikely to be given a hearing, much less the opportunity to serve on the Supreme Court as has clearly been his lifelong dream.  Despite having a relatively moderate voting record (some Democrats should be coughing harder than Republicans when it comes to his view on crime & punishment), Garland's association with President Obama, especially with less than a year left of his presidency, has made the Republicans vitriolic to a man they would normally embrace.  We saw that a few weeks ago when sitting governor Brian Sandoval, an actual Republican, was dismissed by the Senate GOP.

This lack of pragmatism is difficult to understand, especially considering the dynamics of this November.  Perhaps there is a little too much sand in Mitch McConnell and the RNC's ears right now considering they seemed genuinely surprised in 2012 when Mitt Romney lost, but their nominee looks very likely to be either a deeply offensive businessman or a man John Boehner once referred to as "Lucifer."  Hillary Clinton runs as high as nine points ahead of Trump in some national polls, a walloping that would almost certainly ensure that Mitt Romney loses Senate seats he currently holds in Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.  Merrick Garland may not be Antonin Scalia (thankfully he's far from it), but he's definitely going to be more moderate than what a President Hillary Clinton and a Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will allow on the floor of the Senate in a few months.  McConnell's betting on Trump is a foolish and deeply risky decision, one that could cost the Republicans on a number of different issues such as gun control, the death penalty, and campaign finance.

The fact that they can't see that, and they are blinded by their blistering hatred of President Obama (who is clearly throwing them a bone here if they'd be willing to take it) is galling and proof that they have no understanding of the reasons behind Donald Trump's rise in their party.  The Republicans, years ago, unleashed a torrent of hatred toward President Obama that their brand has never recovered from (namely the rise of Sarah Palin and Mitch McConnell's "we will oppose him on everything" tactic), which has allowed Donald Trump to rise.  You subtract the government shutdowns, the birth certificate controversy, the lying campaign around Obamacare, and you don't have Trump.  Hell, you probably have President Romney.  By dismissing all decisions, even ones they would normally agree with, of the president (excepting the occasional trade agreement), McConnell has put his party in a position where no one knows what they stand for but only what they stand against, and that's not a great electoral strategy as the #NeverTrump movement has learned.

The fact is that Mitch McConnell would have voted for Merrick Garland in 2014 if this opening had come up, and that's a cold hard fact that I think most everyone will agree with.  Seven sitting Republican US Senators, in fact, voted for Garland when he was last before the Senate in 1997 (for the curious, Sens. McCain, Roberts, Coats, Collins, Inhofe, Cochran, and Hatch).  Orrin Hatch has been effusive in praise for the man, and it's hard to imagine, say, Mark Kirk wanting to take an ardent stand against a Chicago-born justice.  The American people aren't going to vote specifically on the Supreme Court, but they have picked up on the attacks the Republicans have thrown at the president in the past eight years, and it's turned off enough people that a Donald Trump, who is coming from those who advocated an "I Hate Obama" strategy, can emerge.  And claiming the American people should have a say is not going to hold water with pretty much anyone since he's ignored what the American people said in 2008 and 2012.

It's hard to say, quite frankly, how this plays out.  It seems next to impossible for the Republicans to give Garland a hearing, but they're also going to take a lot of intense pressure from the media and you can bet both Sanders and Clinton will be calling for hearings.  I imagine that Merrick Garland will at least get audiences with a couple of Republican senators (Orrin Hatch seems like he'd be too much a stickler for decorum not to meet with him), and Obama likely is coordinating with some of the more respected and/or conservative members of the Senate caucus (think Feinstein, Heitkamp, and Manchin) who will surely come out for this candidate in the days ahead to paint a portrait of a party willing to compromise versus one that won't.  I feel genuinely terrible for Garland, who in some ways is going to be a pawn in this process after clearly earning a spot on the highest court in the land, but I think he knew that when he signed up.  The Republicans are playing a risky game, and the fact that they can't see that it's obstructionism like this that caused their Trump quagmire on the campaign trail may be the scariest thing of all in this nomination battle.

Top 10 Political Questions of 2016

After nearly a month off from the subject (a much needed break of sorts in the height of Oscar and Christmas season), I am finally returning to the world of political writing.  If you're here exclusively for the politics, know that we'll be back to our Tuesday/Thursday/occasional Friday routine in the next two weeks or so as I begin to assess where exactly we're going to go once Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina cast their incredibly important ballots (if you aren't interested in US politics, we'll still be doing tons of Oscar coverage in the coming weeks as well so please stick around!).  Before that happens, however, I think it's time to pose what I view as ten of the most important questions of the political year, the ten questions that will decide who will succeed President Barack Obama in the White House and what kind of Congress he or she has to deal with as a result.  Let's take a look (in no particular order) at the questions that will decide the next four years for the USA:

1. What Happens to Donald Trump Past New Hampshire?

The biggest political question of them all is what happens if Donald Trump, as he is largely expected to do, wins New Hampshire.  Trump's national numbers are very strong, strong enough that if we had the National Primary Day I've long espoused he would almost certainly be headed to the convention with a plurality, if not an outright majority, of the delegates necessary to make him the nominee.  The problem for Trump is that we don't live in that world but instead one that values who can win a few select states and then how you can build on that momentum.  Trump has largely given Iowa over to Ted Cruz, and has set most of his intentions on a strong second in the Hawkeye State, coupled with a win in New Hampshire.  If this happens, we're in unprecedented territory as the victor of one of those two states has won every single nomination since 1976 except one (Bill Clinton in 1992, and he had to go against favorite sons in both states), and the establishment doesn't quite seem ready for either Trump or Cruz.  Even if they're not, this is something that's been brewing in the GOP for years now, and if Trump comes out of New Hampshire with a "W" he's a viable candidate for the nomination and therefore the Oval Office.
Canary in the Coal Mine: I'll be doing a "what to watch for" with each of these predictions as a sort of harbinger of what might come of this question and how best to answer it.  Here I think the question falls not to South Carolina, which I think will favor Cruz, but instead to Nevada, where Trump's casino empire and level of bombast might find its next home.  Trump has been leading here for months but Cruz is gaining.  If Trump can take NH and NV, he'll have an insanely large amount of momentum headed into Super Tuesday.

2. Chris Christie & New Hampshire

No one has been trying harder to claim the "John McCain Man-from-Behind" mantle than Gov. Chris Christie (well, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are trying, but with limited success).  With Trump, Carson, and Cruz all jockeying in Iowa for position, the establishment is betting almost all of its money on the second place position in New Hampshire as their guy.  For a long time there it seemed like Rubio or perhaps Cruz would take the silver, but Christie has the Big Mo and also comes the closest to favorite son status (New Jersey having a general proximity to New Hampshire).  Christie's frankness in the Granite State makes a lot of sense, of course, considering their famous "Live Free or Die" mentality, and though at the moment Rubio has the technical second place position, Christie could well slide into his spot and as a result become the Chamber of Commerce candidate.  In a three-legged race against Trump and Cruz the New Jersey governor would have a big advantage, but the Clinton camp has to be salivating over taking on the scandal-plagued and famously short-tempered former US Attorney on while the young-and-more-tactful Marco Rubio waits in the wings.  If Christie manages to take some oxygen in New Hampshire, it leaves little room for Bush, Kasich, or Rubio to gain some sort of spark down-the-road.
Canary in the Coal Mine: Look to see if Marco Rubio makes a gambit play at either South Carolina or Nevada in the coming weeks, as that would be a sign that his second place in New Hampshire strategy is taking a hit from Christie and he needs a dent somewhere else.

3. Ted Cruz's Southern Swing

Ted Cruz is in a very strong position.  He's doing well in Iowa, well enough that he might emerge with the first "W" of the GOP primaries, and has gained in position in every major early primary state in a move that mirrors Ben Carson a few months ago, except Cruz is doing it when voters actually are about to cast crucial ballots.  The question for Cruz isn't whether or not he'll emerge as a serious candidate for the nomination-he's already done that-but where does he go next on the map to build on his momentum.  While Trump currently leads in South Carolina and Florida, I suspect Cruz will combine his Midwestern state appeal with huge pockets of voters in the delegate-rich South.  Cruz is going to have a harder time in certain places like New York or Pennsylvania, where a Christie or Rubio candidacy may have a better shot, but if he can take enough Southern voters from Trump while taking on rural voters in places like Idaho and Colorado, that could be a recipe for the nomination.
Canary in the Coal Mine: Look to see where Cruz goes after an Iowa victory.  If he skips out entirely on New Hampshire, assuming that he can afford a Trump/Christie victory there, and goes to South Carolina trying to cut off Trump, he thinks he doesn't need to worry about Rubio and can start to tackle the South right away, getting Trump's supporters in the same way he did Ben Carson's.

4. Marco Rubio & the No Early State Strategy

The fourth candidate that has a real shot at the GOP nomination (and it should be read, the last), is Marco Rubio who is still on that list primarily because everyone knows he's the most electable candidate of the four (Christie will play the electability card down hard, but only because he thinks his rivals are Trump and Cruz, where he does have a decided advantage in that column).  The problem for Rubio is that in an age of social media and instantly branding someone a winner or a loser, he hasn't actually been able to find an early state to stake a claim in: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and even his home state of Florida have all come up short for the first-term senator.  Rubio was banking on getting a number of second or third places in these states, and coming in ahead of Bush/Christie/Kasich, which was probably a smart strategy and one that still could work, but if Christie takes the second place in New Hampshire it's questionable where Rubio could even find a second place in the remaining states.  Without an early state, it's hard to bill him as the most electable candidate as the candidates push into Super Tuesday, and he could miss out in terms of organization and money, particularly to the better-prepared Ted Cruz.
Canary in the Coal Mine: The obvious canary here is New Hampshire and the second place crown.  If Rubio manages to hold Bush back to second (or even third, depending on Ted Cruz), he can probably handle himself as a Trump v. Cruz race will assuredly have a third leg.  If Christie wins, though, you'll be able to tell that Rubio is trying for a Hail Mary by running to Florida.  The home state advantage would be his last shot at upending the field and stealing Christie's thunder.

5. The Brokered Convention

The political nerd's dream, a brokered GOP convention could well happen if Trump, Cruz, and an establishment candidate (either Rubio or Christie) come out of Super Tuesday with enough wins to be formidable but not enough to actually seal the deal for the nomination.  Now a brokered convention could take many forms-something like, say, the 1984 Democratic Convention where Walter Mondale was clearly going to win but was technically considered "brokered" (Mondale was forty delegates shy thanks to Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson having enough supporters) wouldn't be nearly as exciting as something from the late 19th Century, when candidates who hadn't even run somehow popped up as contenders.  How a brokered convention might work would depend a lot on who the frontrunner was-if Cruz, Rubio, or Christie were leading, considering their positions as elected officials, they might have an easier time than a Donald Trump who would surely come across as poison for the general election.  In this case we would expect a potential Trump/Cruz nomination or a Rubio/Christie pull to try and pool enough delegates together to win the nomination (and we'd get loads of political analysts pretending to be knowledgeable about Parliamentary Procedure when in reality they're reading Wikipedia just like the rest of us).  If the convention went on long enough without a nominee, we could have a situation where the nominee doesn't get to pick their running mate (this was close to happening in 1988, where Michael Dukakis nominated Lloyd Bentsen by voice vote rather than a roll call to preclude Jesse Jackson voters from potentially putting him onto the ticket) or a candidate like Paul Ryan who would be a coalition candidate that might satisfy both wings of the party should no one seem like a viable alternative.
Canary in the Coal Mine: If at least three candidates emerge out of Super Tuesday with a serious shot at the nomination, this could happen.

6. The Compensation Running Mates

While occasionally you get a running mate like Al Gore who seems to be doubling-down on your demographic/geographic/ideological strategy, more times than not a veep selection is trying to shore up a deficit in your candidacy.  While it's conventional wisdom that the VP candidate doesn't matter, that's not always the case.  Particularly in an era of Sarah Palin, where a running mate can be considered a disaster, people will pay attention if you pick a particularly compelling (one way or the other) second-in-command.  For Hillary Clinton, she may want to shore up Hispanic voters if she's facing a Rubio or a Cruz by picking Julian Castro, while she may be more inclined to go for a strategic state or a longtime stalwart if she's facing off against a Donald Trump and has a larger lead.  For the Republicans, I suspect that, unless they are hemorrhaging female voters (in which case a Nikki Haley might be an option), they'll probably try and take a swing state, with Ohioans Rob Portman & John Kasich, along with Floridians Marco Rubio & Jeb Bush and Wisconsinite Scott Walker (depending on who the eventual nominee is) going to the front of the line in terms of who the veep candidate is.
Canary in the Coal Mine: Around June, start looking to see who is A) in the lead and B) where the pitfalls are.  Unless the nominee is Trump I suspect that the presidential nominees are going to compensate rather than try to pick a mini-me, so their actual numbers compared to where they need to win will be where they target their running mate choice.

7. The Political Giant Factor

Much has been made in the past few days about President Bill Clinton's entrance into the presidential race as he starts to campaign for his wife in early primary states, but Hillary Clinton has what could be a major liability in that her campaign could frequently be overshadowed by her husband and her former boss, still-President Obama.  Both presidents, along with First Lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, will demand huge crowds and headlines, and while that could be a huge plus for Clinton (she'll be able to cover more ground on the regular if she has six people, including her running mate, out on the campaign trail for her rather than just the typical two), it also risks her being overshadowed.  The spouse of a presidential candidate is always out on the trail for them, but it's likely that Republicans will attack Clinton and say she's riding the coattails of her popular husband and President Obama, and that she's the "runner-up" candidate.  Republicans aren't totally out of the woods in that regard (Speaker Paul Ryan is likely the establishment's first choice if they could have anyone as their presidential nominee in 2016 and may overshadow the eventual nominee on the campaign trail), but Democrats are far more of a focus in this query.
Canary in the Coal Mine: It'll be interesting to see how the consistently candid President Clinton does in his early days, and whether he sticks to the script or avoids gaffes.  He served as a particularly compelling surrogate to President Obama in 2012, so he knows how it's done, but Hillary Clinton, much like Al Gore before her, has been reluctant to give him too much to do on the campaign trail to risk comparison.

8. Can Hillary Clinton Recreate the Obama Coalition?

It's a fact that Hillary Clinton will be able to win the majority of women, African-Americans, Latino voters, GLBT voters, and Millennials; anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much Kool-Aid.  However, the question isn't whether she'll win with them, but by how much.  President Obama cobbled together an impressive demographic coalition in these voting groups, but none of them seem (at this point) as enthused for Sec. Clinton as they were for the current president.  Hillary Clinton will likely do slightly better amongst senior citizens and white voters than the incumbent which should help, but she'll need this voting group to get out, hard, in order to actually win an historic third term for the Democrats.  Whether or not she does this is the true question for the 2016 election-Republicans can't beat the percentages and voter turnout numbers that President Obama pulled together four years ago, especially as the country has become more diverse in that time, so if Clinton manages to hold these groups, she'll win.
Canary in the Coal Mine: Look to see which demographics abandon Clinton in early primary states in favor of Bernie Sanders-I suspect that will be where her campaign spends a good chunk of its time in May to stave off any defectors to the GOP or (more likely) not voting.  Also watch throughout the next few months how much money Clinton and the DNC put into GOTV efforts in places like Georgia and Arizona-this will show how bullish they are about converting lay voters into people who get to the polls.

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH)

9. Senate and the Coattails

The past few presidential cycles have shown that people are increasingly unwilling to split their ballot, which could be anathema for Republicans this cycle if Hillary Clinton does well in the states that President Obama won in 2012.  Seven states (plus North Carolina and Indiana if you want to count 2008) went for Obama in both of his national elections but currently have sitting Republican senators, and the Democrats are hoping that if Hillary Clinton can hold most of those states, they will end up ousting a large number of these Republicans, all but two of which are either open seats or first-termers from the 2010 wave.  The DSCC had a very strong recruiting cycle (missing everyone but Kay Hagan), and even have insurance policies in Missouri and Arizona in case the Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz and Clinton might have a wave on her hands.  If the Democrats can transform down-ballot voters, this could be a huge victory and swing the Senate.
Canary in the Coal Mine: Polls this far out mean nothing, but once we hit the summer look to see how candidates like Ted Strickland, Maggie Hassan, and the eventual Democratic primary winner in Pennsylvania are running in comparison to Hillary Clinton.  If the numbers are about equal, expect this to be a coattails election and the Republican senators' fates to be tied to their nominee, for the good or the bad.

10. The DCCC Recruiting Problem

While the DSCC has had a stupendous recruitment season, the DCCC has struggled consistently to nab major talent, frequently relying on congressional aides and millionaires rather than the traditional mayors and state legislators as their candidates for major office, with plum potential seats such as Barbara Comstock's still without a challenger only months before the primaries.  The question here isn't whether or not the DCCC has lost the battle (they have), but whether it will make the difference in them making big gains.  Candidates matter, but less so than they did say a decade ago before down-ballot party-switching went out of vogue.  If Hillary Clinton is taking on Donald Trump, will the Republicans be able to stave off losses down-ballot because the Democrats brought out the C-Team, or will having a 'D' behind your name be all that matters in swing or left-leaning districts currently held by the GOP?
Canary in the Coal Mine: Look at places like NY-24, NV-3, and IA-3, where the Democrats have feasible candidates but certainly not their top choices.  If they are winning here, it's likely because the electorate simply doesn't want to vote Republican.  If they struggle to gain traction despite a stronger national headwind for their party, it's due to recruitment failures.

Those are the ten major questions I have for the 2016 election cycle-what are the questions you want answered or are most curious about?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

We actually haven't had a chance to do this in a few weeks, but don't think that I forgot about the link updates, and we'll see right now some of the articles that we haven't had a chance to look through in-depth this week and can share from around the web:

In Entertainment...

-Nathaniel over at the Film Experience summed up my opinions so perfectly about Matt Damon and his ridiculous comments about gay actors and gay celebrities that I didn't feel the need to write an article earlier this week, but you should feel the need to read his post as it's excellent.  I hate this sort of celebrity who wants to not just apologize, go on and try to explain that what they said was wrong and that they should have been more clear, but instead we get a further hole-digging from the straight and extraordinarily privileged actor and him trying to use Ellen Degeneres to vouch for him (I hate when straight celebrities do this-Jay Leno did the same thing with Wanda Sykes a few years back, and it makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable-it's the equivalent of saying "I have a black friend" to get out of the "I'm acting racist" argument).  Damon's gained huge star points throughout his career both for his marriage to wife Luciana and his relationships with famed actresses like Winona Ryder and Minnie Driver.  He can lecture all he wants about "hiding your sexuality," but he's never done that, and to expect gay people to do it when he hasn't is pretty much the definition of privileged hypocrisy.

-Speaking of actors I love who are having a bad week with feet-in-their-mouth, Meryl Streep said while promoting her new film Suffragette (where she plays legendary women's rights activist Emmeline Pankhurst) that she is not a feminist, and prefers to be called a humanist.  This is on the heels of actresses like Sarah Jessica Parker, Shailene Woodley, Susan Sarandon, and Marion Cotillard all stating that they don't consider themselves feminists.  On the opposite end of the spectrum this past week presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended the term (and endorsed herself as a feminist) during an interview with Lena Dunham.  My problem with Streep's defense of humanism but not feminism is that, like Sec. Clinton said, feminism isn't about hating men or about not giving men rights, but it is about representing that women are the underrepresented gender and are disproportionately affected by discrimination, so why not empower them through the term.  Dismissing feminism in favor of humanism in many ways feels similar to people saying "All Lives Matter" when confronted with the "Black Lives Matter" movement.

In Politics...

-The New Yorker has a fascinating insight into Carly Fiorina, who has found herself battling Marco Rubio for third place in the polls.  The article is interesting not just for the comments about her tenure at HP (which I have written about quite at length here if you're interested), but also about how poorly she ran a campaign against Barbara Boxer and pulled out a lot of the comments about appearance and gender that Donald Trump has leveled at her (which she has taken offense to, but of course still utilized against her Democratic opponent).  I do want to point out that, since I do write about Ms. Fiorina frequently, it's not because I think she's a serious contender for the presidency (she's not-that's increasingly Marco Rubio, followed by Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump, in that order), but it's because she's getting special treatment in the race due to her gender and I feel like that's setting back the cause for women in politics.  It's not something you're supposed to say, but it's true.  Fiorina's standings in the polls are there now because of her campaign, but she got to where she was because the GOP and the national media didn't like having a field with all men, and you can see that in the way they virtually ignore Democrats like Jim Webb in the Democratic field.  If Fiorina was either a major national celebrity like Trump (say if Ann Coulter had run for the presidency) or if she was an established member of the political community (Susana Martinez, Mary Fallin, Kelly Ayotte, or Nikki Haley all come to mind), I would consider this a legitimate reaction to her campaign, but she's a failed CEO and failed Senate candidate; the only thing that initially distinguished her was her gender.

-Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), on the other hand, demanded the media pay attention and it was partially the fault of the frontrunner Hillary Clinton (we forget in the wake of the email controversy, but let's recall that part of her problems stem from freezing out the media in the months following her announcement creating a vacuum that Sanders was happy to fill) that he came to the strong position he is in today.  The media has been all over themselves talking about how Sanders almost out-raised Clinton, but not all money is considered equal, and Politico has an in-depth look at how most party insiders in the early four primary states think that Sanders needs to nail down more high-profile donors in order to compete.  While I know this is anathema to the kinds of people whom Sanders has on his side, it's true.  My biggest problem with Sanders has long been not that I disagree with him on issues (I don't-I have never liked Bernie's odd "independent" status as he was clearly a Democrat trying to pretend to have "independence" and I think he's way too conservative on gun control but he's always been a solid senator and congressman for the left), but that his campaign is predicated on winning in a way unfamiliar to modern politics.  I have watched politics long enough to know that upsets are rare and that people who want to campaign and get "new voters" either don't succeed, end up having the same coalition as usual, or are Barack Obama.  And Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama.  Sanders needs to show that he can win in traditional areas in order for me to take him seriously as a general election contender, even if his poll positions and fundraising have made me stand up straight on his primary chances.

-Every four years pundits will trot out this old adage, that the most important political issue that you're voting upon isn't climate change or the economy or national security, but instead the composition of the Supreme Court.  It never actually works, though, because it's impossible to tell when it will be true.  Most people would argue that had John McCain won in 2008 the Supreme Court would have been lost to a generation of Democrats, and they could be right but likely not, as both John Paul Stephens and David Souter retired of their own volition and are still living.  Though they may have resigned for health reasons it's safer to assume they did so because they wanted their seats to stay liberal; the same could be said for Sandra Day O'Connor.  Therefore elections like 2008 and 2012 didn't really mean much in court composition, and instead it was years like 1988 and 2004 that were the last elections where the court composition really mattered (where wins by Michael Dukakis or John Kerry would have meant that the likes of Clarence Thomas or John Roberts would have been replaced with much more liberal justices).  It's hard to know if 2016 will be similar to 2008 or 2004 in that regard, but with four justices in their eighties or set to be in their eighties in the next four years, statistics state pretty clearly that it could be a game-changer election for the Court.  If Scalia/Kennedy leave the bench under a President Clinton, it will have mattered.  If Ginsburg/Breyer leave the bench under a President Rubio, it will have mattered.  If anything else happens, it won't have mattered, but these are not odds you necessarily want to risk, particularly if you're a Democrat who is already down by one.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-I didn't write an article about President Obama's conversation about gun control and the shocking need for gun control because I did it a few months ago and every word seems to hold true and will continue to hold true until we do something about it, so if you haven't read that piece I recommend that you do.  I will say, however, that I am sick and tired of liberals on Twitter lumping both sides together on this issue, because literally every time that there is a push for gun control legislation, it's always the Democrats carrying the torch, so get off your high-horse and stop saying both sides are equal on this issue, because they're not.  That sort of dismissive attitude is why we don't get anywhere on this issue, because if you're not going to help out Democrats (or, to be fair, the occasional Republican) who actually do something about gun control, what's the incentive (I can always tell someone's political IQ is low when they say that both sides are the same on an issue)?  When the Toomey-Manchin bill was in the Senate (the last real push for a gun control legislation) Democrats got 90% of their caucus to vote for the bill, the Republicans got 9%.  If that sounds like they're the same, then you're a moron.

YouTube Video of the Week...

-This is a few weeks old, and admittedly I kind of wish Colleen had just skipped Miranda in this one (but she knows where the views are).  Either way, Colleen Ballinger's performance of "Wildest Dreams" is better than Taylor Swift's:

Just One More...

-John Sutter, one of my favorite columnists on the internet, has a fascinating (if frequently terrifying) look at the world of climate change and the ways that we are impacting our planet.  After a recent survey where readers got to pick where Sutter would go with his next column, the audience skipped out on things like coal and instead went with beef production.  While it's long been talked about how we need to shift off of coal/oil production and into renewable forms of energy, the impact that the livestock industry, but particularly cows have on the earth is staggering, to the point where I have slowly but steadily worked beef out of my diet to the point where it's maybe only a once a month sort of treat.  How about you-have you taken the vegetarian (or at least no beef/lamb) plunge?  Share in the comments!

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

It is officially the weekend, but I've had the past week off, so you know, it's been the weekend for a while (I love taking a week off from work when you can-it's weirdly relaxing and sort of puts your life in order just through having days where you don't have to worry about the next stress, but instead sort of taking things at a more leisurely pace).  However, it's a "thank goodness" sort of weekend for some of you I am sure (and will be for me in a week again), so let's link it up!

On Entertainment...

-Ooh, talk about good timing (for me, that is).  Oscar-winning actress Marisa Tomei is going to be joining the cast of Empire in Season 2.  In it she will play a nemesis for Cookie (played by Taraji P. Henson on the show), which should make for some good television.  It also works well with the 2008 OVP we've been discussing for the past week and will continue into over the next few weeks, as this isn't the first time that Henson and Tomei have battled for a big prize-they were also against each other for the Best Supporting Actress trophy in 2008.  Here's to hoping that they find room for Penelope Cruz, Viola Davis, and Amy Adams while they're at it!

-Actor Jeremy Renner addressed the gay rumors in a recent interview for Playboy, which was documented at a link from Entertainment Weekly because you might be at work and probably shouldn't be reading articles at Playboy (there's a link to the full interview in the article if you are so inclined).  Renner is not what I'd consider my favorite celebrity, though he's occasionally a very good actor (like in The Hurt Locker), and it's mostly evidenced by discussions in this article.  While he doesn't have to say that he's gay (he really doesn't, that's his deal), doing the whole "I'm taking a stand by not saying anything" is not really getting the point.  It still shames gay people by making it seem like it IS a big deal, because it feels like something you need to hide.  Either get your publicist not to have the interviewer to ask the question (don't tell me you can't get that into your contract-you're a big enough celebrity to get questions pulled from an interview), or just answer it yes or no.  Also, the joke about Jennifer Lopez at the Golden Globes was pretty juvenile, regardless of who found it funny.

-IndieWire came out with its list of the worst films of 2015 so far, which true to form for every IndieWire list, seems redundant and a little too "easy."  Lists like this, unless they are done by a specific critic are always a bit clickbait and rarely offer up anything interesting (I'm linking more as a reference point so I can get this mini-rant out of my head).  The list goes after easy targets like Katherine Heigl, Nicolas Cage, Johnny Depp, Adam Sandler, and Fifty Shades of Grey while not going after any film that remotely was "popular" or trying to attack a film that had some critical consensus but not universally so.  I'm not asking for a takedown of Spy or Inside Out, but Jurassic World is easily the worst film I saw all year and belongs on a list like this (and yes, I saw Fifty Shades of Grey).  In many ways this reflects why the Razzie Awards have become pointless now-they used to target big films, occasionally even nominating performances that got Oscar nominations, but now it's just easy pop culture targets, much like this "worst of" list.

-Nathaniel discusses Claire Trevor, Agnes Moorehead, Barbara bel Geddes, Ellen Corby, and Jean Simmons in my favorite series on the internet, the Supporting Actress Smackdown (this time hitting 1948).

On Politics...

Gov. Paul LePage (R-ME)

-Despite his protestations to the contrary, Gov. Paul LePage is now being investigated by the Maine legislature over allegations that he illegally misused his power as governor to get State House Speaker Mark Evans fired.  This is a really big story if you've missed it, as the evidence seems to be relatively straight-forward, and could well lead to LePage's impeachment.  In perhaps the worst timing I've ever seen in politics, Gov. Chris Chistie (that other governor who has been investigated for months now regarding his potential abuse of power) was endorsed by LePage earlier this week, sucking up what little energy Christie's presidential campaign had going for it and providing pundits with some easy jokes.  Who next for the New Jersey governor?  Aaron Schock?

-In a week when Hillary Clinton set campaign records and Bernie Sanders was scoring massive crowds on the campaign trail, there was an awful lot of talk about Vice President Joe Biden on the campaign trail.  Rumors are starting to pop up that Biden, who recently lost his son Beau to cancer, may make a third attempt on the White House.  He got an unlikely advocate for his personage (though of course not his politics) from Senator and presidential aspirant Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who called Biden the finest man he's known in politics.  As many of you know if you read this blog regularly I'm a huge Biden supporter in general, though I tend to feel Hillary Clinton is the better 2016 candidate.  However, if Biden takes off in a major way in a bid for the White House, I would be in a bit of a pickle over whom to endorse, particularly since Clinton's bumbling on her email account and bizarre refusal to do national interviews have made me seriously question her campaigning skills (you can bet if Biden runs he'll know that this is a gap for her and will be sitting across from everyone from Robin Roberts to Chris Wallace within a month of his announcement).

-I love when politics and entertainment meet, and this is one of my favorite recent examples.  First Lady Michelle Obama gave a speech this past week addressing a group of women about the importance of educating girls around the world.  The woman who introduced her?  None other than Claire Underwood herself!  Yes, actress Robin Wright who plays the dastardly FLOTUS on House of Cards was cheekily chosen to introduce Obama at the event.

Shameless Self-Promotion of the Week...

-Seriously-what is wrong with the heartthrobs on Vine?

YouTube Video of the Week...

-Gracie does an hilariously inappropriate take on how to make phone sex conversations both realistic and wildly unsexy.  Take a look (but have your headphones in if you're in public):

Just One More...

-We end with a bit of news that will inevitably be used on the big screen the next time the character is relaunched (and doesn't it feel like it's about time he gets thrown back on the big screen?).  Apparently a secret tunnel was found near the castle of Vlad the Impaler (the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula).  The legendary prince was kept in the dungeons near the castle by the Ottomans and has developed into one of the most notorious men of the 15th Century.