Sanders versus Clinton tonight once more, and the superdelegates

Tonight's debate, moderated by PBS NewsHour anchors Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff, will be simulcast on CNN and NPR and stream live on NPR.org.  [...] 

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton meet Thursday night on a debate stage in Milwaukee. It will be their first face-to-face matchup since Tuesday's New Hampshire primary where Sanders beat Clinton by more than 20 points. 

[...] 

PBS is a non-commercial network that doesn't live and die by ratings quite the way CNN or NBC does. The NewsHour, anchored by Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff, is known for lengthy, thoughtful interviews and stories that dig deep. It seems quite likely that sensibility will change the types of questions that are asked. This could be good news for Democratic voters who haven't yet seen the candidates get beyond sound bite answers in debates on issues like criminal justice reform and immigration.

Lots of Clinton folks mocking out the Sanders people about their superdelegate quandary.  When I need the highest douchebaggery, I know that Ted will always be there.

"Not a Democrat".  (False.) "Party's rules don't change." (False.)  And so on like that.  It's all over my social media in the wake of their candidate's tie in Iowa and her crushing defeat in New Hampshire (in which she will still take away the most delegates).  There is no hint of irony in all of this, but a lot of sneering condescension.

Sanders has so far carried, by large majorities, young people -- who don't typically turn out -- and independents, whom a candidate must have in order to win a general election.  These voters have not been attracted to the Democratic Party in the past, and won't be in the future, particularly if these insults against them continue.  And the highest insult is going to be the conduct of the superdelegates.

Superdelegates only came into existence following the defeats of George McGovern in '72 and Jimmy Carter in '80, and not implemented until '84... and the blowout loss of Walter Mondale.  So it would seem that the elite Democrats do no better at selecting the nominee than they perceive the plebians to be.

By 1982, however, the sentiment was essentially that the cure (1972, "validated" by 1980) was worse than the disease (1968).

Since at least that time (I would assert the problem goes back to the selection of Harry Truman over Henry Wallace for vice-president in 1944), Democrats have cowered in fear at the thought of another standard-bearer who represents what the Democratic Party used to represent.  (This primer from almost exactly eight years ago is instructive.)  As more current evidence, simply look at Texas superdelegates, i.e. predominantly Democratic elected officials and donors -- aka the only moderate Republicans left on Earth -- lining up early to support the establishment candidate.  As a result, I won't be able to endorse any Democrat who is a superdelegate that has already come out in support of Hillary Clinton.  This failure to remain neutral while the people decide who they wish to represent them is no longer acceptable.  It's not democratic; those people were elected to serve us in their respective legislatures and executive officees, not to pick our president for us.  (That's another preview of my forthcoming post on how you should consider casting your ballot in the Texas primary.)  Martin Longman of Booman Tribune and Washington Monthly further details why the superdelegates will derail, and not cross over to, Sanders ... which I covered last June.

I get so tired of explaining to Democrats why they actually lose elections.

And with respect to the tussle over the votes of people of color, that is a very vigorous conversation being had as well.  It will determine the success or failure of the Sanders revolution.  The only two excerpts you need ...

"He's speaking our language," said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.). Butterfield, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, was on his way into the CBC's weekly meeting on Capitol Hill when he spoke with The Root. 

When asked whether he thought Sanders' critique was a broadside attack on President Obama's legacy, Butterfield emphatically said that he didn't think the criticism was directed at the president.  

"It's just political discourse," he said, smiling.

But there are clearly some feathers being ruffled. 

And ...

(Rep. Gregory) Meeks said that 90 percent of the 20-member board of the (Congressional Black Caucus)’s PAC voted to endorse Clinton, while none of the board members voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders and a few members abstained because they had not yet endorsed in the race. 

On the neutral list was Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the No. 3 House Democratic leader and  the most prominent South Carolina Democrat, who has since then said he is considering backing a candidate and that candidate, he suggested, is likely to be Clinton. 

“That was certainly my intention,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post of his initial plan to remain neutral. “But I am re-evaluating that. I really am having serious conversations with my family members.”

I'll be watching and Tweeting tonight with all of this as the backdrop.

More on New Hampshire and the primary races ahead

-- Gadfly reminds that Bernie and Hillary debate again tomorrow night, and the Republicans again on Saturday night.  Nevada Democrats caucus on February 20, the same day South Carolina Republicans vote in their primary.  Nevada Republicans caucus on Tuesday, February 23, and South Carolina Democrats vote on Saturday, February 27.  And Texas Democrats and Republicans begin voting next Tuesday, the first business day after Presidents Day, and finish early voting in the March 1 primary on Friday, February 26.

-- Also a reminder that it gets harder for Bernie from here on, and Transgriot explains why (a topic I first wrote about in June).

-- Trump crushed it in New Hampshire with every single Republican demographic.

According to exit polls, Trump, who won New Hampshire with 35 percent of the vote, carried nearly every group with double digits. He won older voters and younger voters. He won people who care about "the issues," 37 percent to 13 percent, and people who care about leadership, 31 percent to 20 percent.

Trump won rich voters and poor voters, conservative voters and moderate voters. He won evangelical Christians — Cruz's base. He won voters with a college degree — who voted for Marco Rubio in Iowa.

He won voters who made up their minds on Tuesday, and he won those who made up their minds months in advance.

And in most cases, when Trump won, he won by a crushing margin.

Since his feet are bulletproof, you can safely expect -- barring the most unforeseen of circumstances -- that he is going to be the GOP nominee.

-- If the same is true of Hillary Clinton (and I still believe it is) then there is no room for a Michael Bloomberg or a Jim Webb candidacy between those two.  Right, far right, and fascist is no way to motivate an electorate.  This is the promise of both Bernie Sanders' revolution, and once the superdelegates close him out (even if he can find his way to beating Clinton in Nevada, and holding her victory margin close in South Carolina) the opportunity rises for the Green Party to build itself a bigger, broader base.

Gadfly believes if Sanders shows enough momentum that the SDs will come over, as they are 'unbound'.  This demonstrates a lack of understanding about Democratic Party politics, and I'm going to reveal it when I finally get finished with my post about the Texas primary elections.

-- Ted gets it wrong again.

Right after Iowa, the first polls in New Hampshire showed Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points. These two polls suggest the race might be tightening in New Hampshire. One has Sanders leading by 7 points, and the other has him leading by 10 points.

If Clinton can make the primary outcome closer than predicted (say 7 points or less), that could be considered a victory for her, since Sanders has been leading big for some time now in New Hampshire. -- [sic] and it could bode well for hr [sic] as she enters friendlier states.

Blinded by the blue light.

-- A few last words about Fat Bastard, Lobster Hands, and Marco Ruboto.

(Christie) invested more hours than anyone in New Hampshire outside of Kasich. He’s performed very well during every debate. He’s come across as likable, almost Jackie Gleason-esque, during every interview. But the fear of another shoe dropping in Bridgegate combined with an good-news-bad-news record in New Jersey was always Christie’s problem… along with that whole we-can’t-nominate-another-Northeastern-Republican-sentiment among the base (See: Romney, Mitt). In the end, Christie will always be remembered as the Jack Ruby of this primary season, because he was the guy who took Rubio out during that last debate without gaining anything out of it for himself. From the beginning, Christie attempted to portray himself as the tough, candid guy who can get things done. Problem for him was Trump already captured the starring bully role in the eyes of voters. 

Which brings us back to Rubio, who is officially now a caricature more than a candidate. He’s mocked by people dressed as robots at every campaign stop he makes. The media can’t mention him without referencing the repetition tick. Call it unfair for a few bad moments, but that’s how politics works… particularly in an age of social media when brush fires become uncontrollable wildfires in mere minutes. If this were another time, another campaign season, maybe Rubio recovers. But the moment Rubio shows any sign of life again, rest assured Trump will never allow him — and the media that covers his every word — to forget his new nickname: Marco Roboto. 

As for Kasich, it’s hard to see where he goes from here outside as the undisputed favorite to be a VP selection. Brit Hume said it best when once observing that the Ohio Governor was running to be president of New Hampshire (thanks to practically living in the Granite State for months while holding an impressive 107 Town Hall meetings). It’s been stated in this space before that Kasich is the most prepared, most experienced, best candidate running on either side right now. His approval rating in Ohio — a state that went twice for Barack Obama — sits at an astounding 62 percent. His record in both Congress and as governor around budgeting, deficit reduction, job creation, and attention/resources allocated to mental illness and drug addiction is unmatched by anyone left seeking to be president. 

But money and organization are important things, and Kasich doesn’t have much of either. Perhaps the Rubio money will go to him as that campaign continues to crumble. Perhaps those clinging to the idea that the Bush brand is still viable will finally come to their senses. But for now, Kasich goes to South Carolina with only a breeze at his back, and not the kind of gust it would take to bring down the big, bad wolf in Donald Trump… who leads there by 16 points in the Real Clear Politics average.

-- And these two hot shots from Nancy LeTourneau at Washington Monthly.

This is an even worse characteristic in a president than being a Marcobot.

[T]o those who have known him longest, Rubio’s flustered performance Saturday night fit perfectly with an all-too-familiar strain of his personality, one that his handlers and image-makers have labored for years to keep out of public view. Though generally seen as cool-headed and quick on his feet, Rubio is known to friends, allies, and advisers for a kind of incurable anxiousness — and an occasional propensity to panic in moments of crisis, both real and imagined.

[...]

When someone writes “Why the Working Class is Choosing Trump and Sanders,” it is important to start reading that as: Why the White Working Class is Choosing Trump and Sanders.

The new normal

We'll see how the revolution plays out over the next couple of weeks. With Bernie's blowout holding up -- almost 61% to her 38% -- the focus turns to whether Nevada and South Carolina, where more orthodox Democrats do most of the voting -- can be Clinton's firewall.

There's at least a hint that some reshuffling is coming (my emphasis).

By ABC NEWS ANALYSIS DESK Feb 9, 2016, 9:46 PM ET 

Sanders won women by 53-46 percent, as well as prevailing far more widely among men, 65-34 percent. Sixty-nine percent of women under 45 backed Sanders (including 82 percent of those under 30 women), while Clinton won women 45 and older by 56-43 percent.

By ABC NEWS ANALYSIS DESK Feb 9, 2016, 9:46 PM ET

Nonwhites roughly divided, 52-48 percent, Clinton-Sanders.

The Clinton campaign response to the shellacking:

Asked about polling data showing that Sanders had won independent voters by an overwhelming margin in New Hampshire, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri was quick with a comeback.

“Most of the states we’re going to now, Democrats vote in them,” she said. “Not independents.”

Palmieiri -- unwittingly, I can only presume -- revealed Hillary's precise general election weakness with that statement.  Democrats don't win in November without young people and independents.

Citing the exit polls, which showed Sanders winning 83 percent of voters under the age of 30 and 72 percent of independents, (Sanders’ New Hampshire communications director Karthik) Ganapathy said he had “two takeaways” from Sanders’ performance in the Granite State (where “undeclared” voters are allowed to cast ballots in either party’s primary). 

“Young people and the independent, undeclared voters — they came out and they made the crucial difference in this election,” Ganapathy said. “People think they’re sort of unreliable. But they’re here and they’re voting.”

There is still a long way to go with regard to Latino and African American Democrats.  Clinton holds big leads in both the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary, but the latest polling there is quite old; the most recent conducted a week before before Iowa.  The news to anticipate in both states is whether there has been any movement.

As for the indies, they broke 42% Republican and 40% Democrat, with higher vote totals -- 216 K versus 242 K -- on the red side as well.  That worked out as well for Trump as it did for Sanders.  The Donald doubled up John Kasich, who placed second, with Bush, Cruz, and Rubio all bunched together in third, fourth, and fifth.

It's over for Fat Bastard.  His Saturday night beatdown of Marco Ruboto did not translate into any momentum; he ended the night with the sixth place ribbon at 7.5% and is going home to New Jersey to "take a deep breath".  Expect the JP to pronounce his campaign's death later this morning.

Trump and Cruz still look like the front-runners to me, with Rubio (or not) and Kasich and -- to a much lesser degree, Bush -- all fighting it out in Nevada and South Carolina.

Texas will have its early votes in the can -- historically about half the total -- before we know any results from the Palmetto State.  So trends and momentum are the thing to watch for in both primaries.

I swear I've got a Texas post coming.

Ted Cruz is NOT a pussy

Trust me on this, Donald.  He's just as big a bully as you are and he's got the mission-from-God stamp of approval to show for it.  Jeebus Christ on a Christmas tree crutch, what a pair of wads.

They're your co-leaders for the GOP nod after today, though, with the media piling back on the Trump bandwagon for ratings again, including those sad sacks at MSNBC.  That network's political coverage has been an absolute disgrace so far, and that's to say nothing of their shilling for Hillary.

John Kasich -- and not Chris Christie -- may pull an upset for second place, according to what I'm reading.  Even Jeb! may see a slight erection resurrection.  And when the Big Dog starts talking dirty, you know that the Clintons are mad at everybody again.

Marco Ruboto is toast.  Singed, but maybe not as Bernt as Hillary.  I've called it 55-42 for Sanders (lowering expectations a bit) and Trump 30, Kasich 15, Cruz 13, Bush 12, Rubio 11, and Christie 10. But you can shuffle those bottom four any way you like.

Update: read the Vox advance; they seem to be hitting the mark every time.

Here's your funny for today: the same two guys who heckled Jeb! are spotted in the camera shot behind Hilz wearing "Settle for Hillary" shirts.

Enjoy your Fat Tuesday.  I know that I am.

The Weekly Wrangle

In bringing you this week's blog post roundup, the Texas Progressive Alliance congratulates the Denver Broncos and Peyton Manning for their Super Bowl victory yesterday, and thought the Snickers 'Marilyn' commercial was the best of the advertising.

Off the Kuff published interviews with three of the candidates who hope to succeed Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner in the Legislature.

Libby Shaw, contributing to Daily Kos, can’'t decide whether the junior U.S. Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, more closely resembles former Senator Joe McCarthy or President Tricky Dick Nixon in his campaign tactics. The Texas Blues: Everything is Bigger. Especially the Tricksters and Their Sleazy Tricks.

Socratic Gadfly, while liking many things about last Thursday's Democratic town hall forum, regretted the missing foreign policy questions that likely won't get asked in ANY "mainstream media" debate.

"What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?" asked PDiddie at Brains and Eggs of a prominent national political blogger.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants everyone to know that South Texas people are waiting for clean water, too.

Nonsequiteuse has run away to join the circus. Or, gone to New Hampshire to meet the candidates.

Egberto Willies has the video of the presentation of Move to Amend's David Cobb at Kingwood College last week.  Cobb will be also appear in Houston this Friday evening.

Neil All People Have Value said we are not always best represented by people who resemble us in some superficial manner. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Scott Braddock reports on the latest attempt to move the Texas GOP even further to the right.

Glen Maxey dropped by Juanita Jean's to give an update on how the Democratic effort to get absentee ballots out to people is going.

Somervell County Salon has Hillary Clinton's Horrid Campaign Tactic O'Day: surrogates condemning women to Hell if they don't vote for her.

The Lunch Tray notes that Ted Cruz wants your kids to eat more French fries.

OutSmart salutes 10 black LGBT leaders in Houston.

Mary Flood calls for an end to judicial candidates spamming requests for favorable votes in the Houston Bar Association poll.

BOR implores us to support Rep. Jessica Farrar against her notoriously hateful non-Democrat primary opponent.

Grits for Breakfast makes an endorsement (of sorts): vote for the conservative judicial activist pro-Big Government vote if you're voting in the GOP primary.

Pages of Victory points out that failure is a right and not a privilege.

And Sharon Briggs writes an ode to Waco's Elite Cafe', which closed last week after nearly one hundred years of service.

Even Skynet is more self-aware than Marco Rubio

The most amazing part of last night was Rubio's audio program getting stuck in a loop.

Moments after the Republican debate ended Saturday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie walked over to Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, shook his hand and offered some customary words of encouragement.

Rubio stared mutely back, looking flummoxed, Christie told close aides moments later according to one Christie adviser who was in the room. 

Christie and his team were buoyant after the New Jersey governor mauled Rubio in a one-on-one face-off in the first half-hour of the debate, repeatedly mocking Rubio for what he called his lack of experience and accomplishments. It was clearly a bad night for Rubio.

Didn't we see this in Westworld (the old one, with Yul Brynner)?  I mean to say, if Rubio really is a robot, would he sweat that much or have to break for a drink of water so often?

IIRC correctly, though, the robot won.  Mostly.  Not the case last night.

“Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world,” Rubio said. 

The moderators then turned to Christie to ask about his criticisms of Rubio’s experience. When Christie doubled down, Rubio returned to his line about Obama three more times. He kept repeating the comment even as Christie mocked him for resorting to a “memorized” sound bite. 

“You see, everybody, I want the people at home to think about this. That is what Washington, D.C., does: the drive-by shot at the beginning, with incorrect and incomplete information, and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him,” Christie said, as the debate audience began to roar.

Frankly I am sorry I missed the debate now.  This was Fat Bastard's moment in the GOP spotlight, and he made hay with it.  It's even a bigger beatdown than Debbie Wasserman Schultz took for Tweeting something Rubio-level-clueless about the scheduling of last night's debate.

Hmmm, wondering why @GOP trying to hide their #GOPdebate on the Saturday of #SuperBowl weekend no less?!

— D Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) February 6, 2016

As you might imagine, the social media Irony Tower came crashing down upon her head.

But even that wasn't as funny as this.



A comedy of errors. The real comedy, as it has been all season, was on Saturday Night Live, which had doppelgangers Bernie Sanders and Larry David talking about socialism errr, democratic socialism, on the Titanic.

Hey John: this is how to be funny.  You're failing.

Super Sunday Funnies

You know that “TrusTed” logo? The one with TRUS and TED merged, yet separated via different colors?

Turns out that when you Google “TRUS”, the logo at once becomes hilarious and hilariously appropriate:

"A transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is an ultrasound technique that is used to view a man's prostate and surrounding tissues. The ultrasound transducer (probe) sends sound waves through the wall of the rectum into the prostate gland, which is located directly in front of the rectum."

Yup, that’s the very top Google result. Basically, it’s an anal probe. Which makes us even more certain that he’s actually an alien.

Well done, Ted!

The Republicans debate again tonight

I probably won't watch or Tweet any of it since there's an early Chinese New Year celebration, with dinner and a lion dance we'll be attending.  (I'm kinda Mardi-Graw'ed out after all these years.)

The Republican Party will hold its final debate before the New Hampshire Primary on Saturday night, Feb. 6. 

ABC will broadcast the contest starting at 8 p.m. ET, and will also live stream it on ABCNews.com, ABC News mobile apps, and through apps on Apple TV, Xbox One, and Roku, according to a spokesperson for ABC News.

ABC has extended invitations to just seven candidates: Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, former Gov. Jeb Bush, Gov. Chris Christie and Gov. John Kasich. 

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore did not receive invites, as they neither finished in the top three in the Iowa caucuses, nor the top six in a recent average of national or New Hampshire primary polls. ABC News stuck to its decision to keep Fiorina out of the debate, despite a public lobbying effort by the former technology executive in recent days to be included.

It's make-or-break time for a couple of guys.

Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie both invested time and money in Iowa. Together they got 5 percent. Christie said he had to do well in Iowa, which his campaign insisted meant that he had to finish ahead of the other governors. He did not do that, finishing ahead of only  Rick Santorum and Jim Gilmore. Bush spent a substantial amount of time in the Hawkeye State and thought he could get support from the network his brother and father had there. He did not get that support. At least Ohio Gov. John Kasich did not expend very much time or effort in getting just 2 percent in Iowa. 

The debate [...] may therefore be the last real shot for Bush and Christie to get into the race and reestablish themselves as something more than also-rans. It also will be critical for Kasich to remind New Hampshire voters that he is there and remains a viable candidate.

Let's say a soft goodbye to them both.  Kasich is still polling fourth, which means he's ahead of Jeb!, but that won't mean much after next Tuesday with southern and western primaries dominating Super Tuesdays ahead.  Christie faces another subpoena about Bridgegate, so if he manages to get into contention he'll still be damaged goods.  Bush's campaign is comatose and pathetic, but he apparently plans on being around for South Carolina because his brother is riding to his rescue.

I don't see anything developing here.  It still looks like Trump, Cruz, and Rubio -- in any order you like -- to be the remaining choices going forward.

The news post-Iowa is that Marco Rubio stole Ted Cruz's bounce.

Trump, by all indications, will return to the debate stage Saturday. We will see if the Iowa loss stripped him of any bravado or venom. Will he go right back after Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.)? That would be his natural inclination, but his arguments will have to be better than the birtherism canard. In some sense, both Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) have the same argument against Cruz: He is another slippery pol, tooting his own horn but as calculating and phony as the rest of them. Unlike Rubio, however, Trump does not need to show he is conservative enough for the GOP. His supporters by and large do not care what his ideology is; they want someone to show strength, candor, irreverence, and empathy for their anger and resentment. 

But married with Trump’s populist, less educated base of support is a certain sense of pragmatism — the opposite of Cruz’s appeal for rigid ideological purity. That contrast between deal-maker and enemy-maker should be on display at the debate Saturday. Cruz is right that Trump seems to have no governing vision. Trump is right that Cruz has little personal appeal and no sense of how to get things done. Between the two of them, they seem to embrace virtually every bad idea circulating on the right (e.g., protectionism, exclusion of immigrants, disregard for human rights) and every bad political trait of our times (e.g., anger, rudeness, dishonesty, lack of compassion).

Keep in mind all of these opinions belong to the WaPo's most Republican commentator, Jennifer Rubin.

If the GOP is gradually coming to its political senses, looking for an electable nominee and a plausible chief executive, this will be the week to knock out Trump and show Cruz has minimal appeal outside deep-red locales. Cruz’s support in Iowa came overwhelmingly from very conservative voters, about 44 percent of whom voted for him, and could get only about 19 percent of somewhat conservative voters and about 9 percent of moderates.That split works in the Iowa caucuses where  the most conservative voters predominate, but not in the majority of primary contests. Revealing him to be a rigid ideologue with very few answers for our problems should be the grown-ups’ focus.

I expect the vote next Tuesday to go pretty much how it's been polling: Trump in first, Rubio second, Cruz third, Kasich fourth.  My strongest recommendation is to go do something fun tonight, as we are, and then get ready for the Super Bowl tomorrow, and then go have a drink on Fat Tuesday rather than pay attention to election returns that evening.

It's time for me to blog about some local developments, such as the candidates on the Texas primary ballot and some other items closer to home.  That's coming up shortly.

How was it?

I feel asleep before it began (long, exhausting day).  I hear it had its moments...

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, in by far their testiest encounter of the campaign, tangled Thursday night over the role of money in politics and the philosophical underpinnings of the Democratic Party in their first one-on-one debate. 

The candidates scowled, frowned, and cut each other off as they traded attacks that had before been launched from the less personal remove of press releases and tweets.

Sanders said Clinton’s speaking fees and campaign finance donations from Wall Street would hinder her from bringing sweeping changes needed to protect the middle class.

Clinton accused Sanders’ operation of engaging in a “very artful smear campaign” to make her appear too cozy with Wall Street. Instead, she said, her ties to financial executives give her valuable insights into how they operate. 

"I don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you,’’ Clinton told the Vermont senator. “Enough is enough."

It's been kind of a scold all week from the Clinton side.

Somebody got booed from what I understand.  There were also purity tests galore, which to me is the most important distinction.  I have laughed until I cried for months now at Hillary's supporters' attempt to fit her square peg into that round hole.  (Now don't construe that as sexist; it's a common figure of speech and you are smart enough to be aware of it.)

It was by far Sanders’ strongest and smoothest performance. 

For a senator with limited experience on the national stage, he was finally able to go toe-to-toe with one of the most skillful debaters in the party —toggling between his signature anger and the occasional joke. 

This was the last time New Hampshire voters were scheduled to see them on stage together before voting Tuesday’s primary election, and came as the contest has taken a more personal turn. 

The candidates debated what it means to be a progressive in the Democratic Party. Sanders said Clinton represents the party establishment and that he represents "ordinary Americans." 

“Senator Sanders is the only person to characterize me — the first woman running to be the first woman president, as part of the establishment,” Clinton said. “It’s really quite amusing to me.”

She doesn't sound all that amused, does she?  Did she sound amused when she said it?  She played the "lady" card too quickly again too.  Did that work?

Did anybody use the word 'pragmatic' or 'pragmatism'?

About halfway through the debate, the pair returned to a fight that broke out via social media this week, when Sanders unleashed a Twitter offensive over Clinton’s progressive credentials. 

“You can be a moderate,” Sanders wrote. “You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.” 

During the debate, Clinton confronted Sanders, calling him “the self-proclaimed gatekeeper of progressivism.” 

“I am a progressive who gets things done,” Clinton said. “The root word of the word progressive is progress.” 

She said that by Sanders’ definition, President Obama wouldn’t be considered a liberal because he took campaign donations from Wall Street. 

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive?” Sanders said. “Yeah. I do.”

Bernie is wrong about Obama, and Predator drones, Trans-Pacific Trade Partnerships, and not fighting for a public option when he had a Democratic Congress are just a few of the reasons why Sanders is in the hunt for the White House ... and of course why he's almost winning.  But the establishment is simply not going to be denied again.

Since I didn't watch, I missed all of the negativity but Oliver Knox seems to think they ended the evening in harmony.

Democratic presidential rivals Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton knocked each other around Thursday in their first one-on-one debate of the 2016 season, but ultimately closed ranks behind the notion of keeping the White House in their party’s hands. 

Sanders spent much of the evening arguing that he was the true standard-bearer for the Democratic Party, hammering the former secretary of state over her ties to Wall Street and vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Clinton focused her energies largely on defending her progressive bonafides, while arguing that the Vermont independent was putting ideological purity on a pedestal above pragmatic proposals that could actually become reality. 

But by the end of their MSNBC encounter, the two candidates closed ranks. 

It started when moderator Chuck Todd asserted that Clinton did not think Sanders could be president. She looked genuinely surprised, and said, “I never said that,” then brushed aside his follow-up about whether she might pick Sanders as a running mate if she wins the party’s nomination. 

“Well, I’m certainly going to unite the party, but I’m not getting ahead of myself. I think that would be a little bit presumptuous,” Clinton said. “If I’m so fortunate as to be the nominee, the first person I will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done will be Sen. Sanders.”

Todd tried the question on Sanders. 

“I agree with what the secretary said. We shouldn’t be getting ahead of ourselves,” the Vermont senator replied. ”And as I have said many times, you know, sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect the secretary very much, I hope it’s mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.” 

Clinton agreed, declaring “That’s true, that’s true.”

That sounds agreeable.  Bernie's already thinking about making sure his people line up behind her about a month or so from now; my revised prediction is shortly after their debate in Flint and the Michigan primary on March 8.

Plan B goes into effect at that time.

Round Two, El Caballero y La Dama

Last night was substantive, calm, rational, and revealing.  This evening we're probably back to the shouting and hand-waving and accusations and such.

The next Democratic debate is tonight at 9 pm Eastern. It will take place at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, and will air on MSNBC. An online live stream will be available at MSNBC.com. 

This debate wasn't on the sparse original list of six that the Democratic National Committee approved. But when NBC and the New Hampshire Union Leader decided to host an "unsanctioned" debate between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, without the DNC's approval, Hillary Clinton — who seemed to regret her allies' role in limiting the debates, and hoped for an opportunity to shrink Bernie Sanders's large lead in New Hampshire — said she'd show up. The Sanders team then used the opening to get Clinton to agree to three more debates in exchange for his own attendance. 

The upshot is that this will be the first face-off between the two candidates since they fought to a virtual tie in the Iowa caucuses. And it will also be the first featuring only Clinton and Sanders, since Martin O'Malley suspended his campaign Monday night.

Again from last night, I saw it as among Bernie Sanders' finest public moments.  He simply communicates with a sincerity and a humility that Hillary Clinton cannot.  She didn't really have too many bad moments; it's just that she comes off as your standard 'say anything' politician when you have the opportunity to compare the two closely.

This debate comes just five days before the February 9 New Hampshire primary — a primary Bernie Sanders is expected to win, since Clinton has trailed him in state polls for most of the past six months. 

Weirdly enough, this seriously raises the stakes of tonight's debate for Sanders. Because if he loses New Hampshire to Clinton, it will be interpreted as a major blow to his campaign. The Granite State is a really good fit for Sanders both geographically (he represents neighboring Vermont) and demographically (it's overwhelmingly white, and white Democrats are more likely to back him). And the next states to vote — Nevada and South Carolina — seem to favor Clinton. 

That's why Clinton was so eager to add this debate — to give her the chance to turn her numbers in New Hampshire around, and perhaps even pull off an improbable come-from-behind victory there like she did in 2008. If Clinton triumphs in New Hampshire, she could deflate Sanders's campaign early, and roll to victory elsewhere.

She'll roll no matter what happens tonight or on February 9.  I've been saying it since the summer.

It's nice to have hope and to be inspired, but the deck is stacked too strongly against him.  Maybe I'm just cynical after watching politics so closely for the past decade-plus, and after getting my hopes up with people like Howard Dean in 2004, David Van Os in 2006, John Edwards in 2008, and more recently Wendy Davis in 2014 and Chris Bell in the last municipal cycle.

Unsurprisingly, then, the contest between them has been getting more tense. In recent days, Sanders has more aggressively questioned Clinton's progressive credentials, criticizing her for raising money on Wall Street and voting for the Iraq war. And Clinton has been been increasingly focused on gun control, one of the few issues she has a more liberal record than Sanders on — while sowing doubts about Sanders's electability. Expect all these topics to come up quite a bit tonight.

Since New Hampshire is a primary, at least we won't have any coin flips.

I used to be a big, big proponent of caucuses, but not any more.

Update: A party divided.

What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?

The stakes weren't as high as if you had the misfortune of meeting Anton Chigurh, but the answer to his question with regard to the Iowa Democratic Caucus events is: "perhaps our democracy", and with respect to certain Clinton supporters... their dignity.

Last night, as the story of the coin tosses in some Iowa precincts began to take on Kennedy-assassination dimensions (among both believers and heretics, mind you) I thought I would join the fun in teasing the Clintonistas a little about it.  I had not been online much of the afternoon and some of the evening, so I didn't know that so many people had already lost their sense of humor about the matter.  I did post about the six-for-six yesterday, and did research a little further and received a good answer about the county delegates versus the national delegates conflation, which satisfied me.  Steve Kornacki at MSNBC made the same mistake in interpretation that I did, and apologized for it, but I didn't know that either until after the following Twitter exchange.

@MargaretClancy @PDiddie Except we now know there were 13 coin tosses, and Bernie won six of them. Sorry! https://t.co/kdFbkfaqCw

— Susie Madrak (@SusieMadrak) February 3, 2016

Let's disclose that Susie is a long-time Democratic activist and blogger, most recently at Crooks and Liars but now at Blue Nation Review, which is owned by David Brock, who is ... you get the picture.  (Suzie is also my Facebook friend, we've interacted recently and not just on the 2016 campaign, and C&L under her stewardship has linked to Brains several times over the years, producing traffic in the hundreds and even thousands of daily clicks on each occasion.)

Her professional association with Brock isn't the biggest problem here, sadly.  Click on the Blue Nation Review piece -- after the word "Sorry!" in the Tweet above -- and then click on the link she has there to this Des Moines Register story about the coin flips, and then compare it to her excerpt at BNR.

They don't square for me, but the excerpt she used does appear in this DMR story, which I found at the end of this Snopes link, which describes the coin flip caper as a 'mixture' of proven and unproven (and perhaps yet, or never to be, proven) claims.

Update, 1 p.m CST: Susie's fixed the link at the original without noting the correction.  Aren't there journalist rules about that?  (I have a screenshot of the original in case anybody wants it.)

So... in the spirit of snark, I'm offering the following to Madrak and everybody else who feels so upset about the whole thing:

"For a limited time, receive this 'Hillary Clinton Victory in Iowa' coin when you make a $1 campaign contribution!" *We're only asking for a dollar instead of $49.95 plus shipping and handling so that Hillary can demonstrate she has some small donor support, according to James Carville's recent e-mail

Groundhog Toons

Let's do it all over again next Tuesday, shall we?

"We might never be this close again ..."