Thursday Open Thread [2.19.15]

Derek Willis: “The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clinton’s Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot. The lack of distance between the Democratic hopefuls suggests that creating a wedge between someone like Ms. Warren and Mrs. Clinton would be harder among Democratic donors, and perhaps among the broader primary electorate. The situation is different for Republicans, with considerable space available to the right of Jeb Bush (4.2) — and a lot of candidates to vie for it.”

Hillary Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, “a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement,” the New York Times reports.

“The get-together represented a step toward relationship-building for two women who do not know each other well. And for Mrs. Clinton, it was a signal that she would prefer Ms. Warren’s counsel delivered in person, as a friendly insider, rather than on national television or in opinion articles. And for Ms. Warren, the meeting offered the opportunity to make clear what she believes are the most pressing national issues.”

To me, it sounds like that first step in the dance we usually see when a candidate for a party nomination has just more or less locked it up and is exploring an endorsement from the principal rival without demanding an acknowledgment of defeat, not unlike the meeting in a Washington townhouse in 2008 between then Senators Obama and Clinton. But Bloomberg Politics’ Emily Greenhouse, thinks it might represent more, not Clinton vanquishing Warren, but the other way around:

Some might have interpreted the report as a sign that Clinton was taking Warren under her wing. But for Warren’s most vocal supporters, the self-appointed army raging for economic populism, the tête-à-tête meant just about the opposite. Ilya Sheyman, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, which with Democracy for America launched the project Run Warren Run, sounded emboldened. “It’s more evidence that Sen. Warren and progressives are driving the conversation within the Democratic Party,” he said, through a spokesman. “That’s why we’re eager for Elizabeth Warren to run for President, and any candidate would do well to speak to the issues she’s led on — like tackling income inequality, student debt, and taking on the big banks.”

First Read on how control of the Senate beyond 2017 will depend on who wins the Presidential race: “Indeed, in the 40 Senate contests since 2004 rated by the Cook Political Report as either a Tossup or a Lean race, 32 times (or 80%) the Senate contest went the same way as the presidential contest did in the same state. And that’s particularly important when you consider that the 2016 Senate battlegrounds will be in Colorado (Bennet -D), Illinois (Kirk -R), Nevada (Reid – D), New Hampshire (Ayotte – R), North Carolina (Burr – R), Pennsylvania (Toomey – R), Wisconsin (Johnson – R), Florida (Rubio – R), and Ohio (Portman – R).”

NEW JERSEY–PRESIDENT–Rutgers-Eagleton: Clinton 58, Christie 35.
COLORADO–PRESIDENT–Quinnipiac: Clinton 43, Paul 41; Clinton 43, Christie 34; Clinton 44, Bush 36; Clinton 42, Walker 40; Clinton 44, Huckabee 39
IOWA–PRESIDENT–Quinnipiac: Clinton 45, Paul 37; Clinton 45, Huckabee 38; Clinton 44, Christie 34; Clinton 45, Bush 35; Clinton 45, Walker 35
VIRGINIA–PRESIDENT–Quinnipiac: Clinton 44, Paul 42; Clinton 42, Bush 42; Clinton 44, Huckabee 41; Clinton 44, Christie 39; Clinton 45, Walker 40

“An Oklahoma bill banning Advanced Placement U.S. History would also require schools to instruct students in a long list of ‘foundational documents,’ including the Ten Commandments, two sermons and three speeches by Ronald Reagan,” Think Progress reports.