Nate Silver on whether Arizona and Texas can turn blue in 2016 based on demographics alone. The answer is no, but North Carolina does.
“Conservatives are trying so hard to highlight controversies, no matter how trivial, we have forgotten the basics of reporting: W5 + H as I learned in grade school, also known as who, what, where, when, why, and how. I think conservatives need to reset some of their reportorial resources to tell the stories that need to be told by focusing on the facts at hand in a world view of the right. We need to establish a baseline for integrity in reporting that then allows us to highlight the truly outrageous. That baseline must be the basics of who, what, where, when, why, and how and it must be set before taking the next step into analysis of motivation and its implications.” – Erick Erickson
Who dares run against Hillary in the Dem primary, Steve Kornacki wonders:
I would say there’s a decent chance Clinton actually could clear the field and face no serious opposition for the nomination. Not a good chance, but a decent one. This has never happened for a non-incumbent in the modern era, but then again, it’s not like we’re dealing with a huge data set here. And Clinton really is approaching the ’16 race with a set of advantages we’ve never before seen for a non-incumbent. Yes, there’s plenty of time between now and Iowa – time for Clinton to stumble or take a pass on the race, time for Obama to really step in it, time for a real split to open up within the Democratic Party. I’m not calling Clinton a shoo-in for the nomination, or even predicting she’ll run. I’m just arguing that if she does, she could break the mold for non-incumbent candidates of the modern era.
The only with the stature that Hillary now possesses is Gen. Eisenhower in 1952, and even he faced a credible and significant primary or a challenge from the more conservative Senator Bob Taft. I think if Hillary does run, we will still see a candidacy from Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. Cuomo will demur to Clinton. And so does Biden, in my opinion.
Jon Chait on the lying and unethical Bob Woodward:
His more recent books often compile interesting facts, but how Woodward chooses to package those facts has come to represent a barometric measure of a figure’s standing within the establishment. His 1994 account of Bill Clinton’s major budget bill, which in retrospect was a major success, told a story of chaos and indecision. He wrote a fulsome love letter to Alan Greenspan, “Maestro,” at the peak of the Fed chairman’s almost comic prestige. In 2003, when George W. Bush was still a decisive and indispensable war leader, Woodward wrote a heroic treatment of the Iraq War. After Bush’s reputation had collapsed, Woodward packaged essentially the same facts into a devastating indictment. Woodward’s book on the 2011 debt negotiations was notable for arguing that Obama scotched a potential deficit deal. The central argument has since been debunked by no less a figure than Eric Cantor, who admitted to Ryan Lizza that he killed the deal.