Offering daily news and analysis from the majestic Evergreen State and beyond, The Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Ted Cruz leads Donald Trump in Idaho Republican primary; Rubio, Kasich far behind

Today, Idaho became the first state in the contiguous Pacific Northwest region to hold a nominating event in the 2016 presidential contest. The polls have now closed in the Gem State’s Republican primary, and here are the early results:

Idaho Republican Primary: March 8th, 2016

With 95 of 955 precincts reporting.
(includes absentee precincts where applicable)
Last updated Mar 8 2016 9:27PM Mountain Time

Candidate Votes Percentage
Ted Cruz 5,779 39.1%
Donald J. Trump 5,066 34.2%
Marco Rubio 2,227 15.1%
John R. Kasich 1,193 8.1%
Ben Carson 284 1.9%
Jeb Bush 77 0.5%
Rand Paul 61 0.4%
Chris Christie 24 0.2%
Mike Huckabee 34 0.2%
Carly Fiorina 13 0.1%
Lindsey Graham 11 0.1%
Peter Messina 0 0.0%
Rick Santorum 23 0.2%

Unofficial early results are here.

It’s still early, but there’s no doubt Ted Cruz is off to a good start. He has a small but important lead over Donald Trump. Rubio and Kasich, meanwhile, are at a distant third and fourth place, and probably won’t be contending for victory in this election.

Thirty-two delegates are at stake in Idaho. It is not a winner-take-all state, so no matter how well Ted Cruz does, he’ll still be splitting some delegates with Trump.

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Sanders running neck and neck in Michigan Democratic primary

It’s once again Primary Day somewhere in America. Today, voters in Michigan and Mississippi went to the polls to cast votes in those state’s Democratic and Republican primaries. It was a good night for Donald Trump all around, as he defeated his Republican rivals in both states. And for Hillary Clinton, it was a good night in Mississipi, where she handily dispatched Bernie Sanders.

But in Michigan, it’s a different story.

In Michigan, defying pretty much everybody’s expectations, Bernie Sanders currently has a lead of several thousand votes. Sanders was behind by twenty points in preelection polling, but he’s held a small, steady lead that alternatively shrinks and grows by small amounts since the polls closed.

Take a look:

Michigan Democratic Primary, March 8th, 2016

48% reporting as of 7:06 PM Pacific

Candidate Percentage Votes
Bernie Sanders 281,812 49.8%
Hillary Clinton 273,069 48.3%
Other candidates 10,519 1.9%

Keep in mind there are still a lot of votes left to be counted.

Wayne County, where Detroit is located, is notoriously slow at counting votes. It is definitely helping to keep Clinton competitive, as it’s going for her by a substantial margin (nearly 60% Clinton). And yet Sanders is still ahead statewide.

UPDATE, 7:48 PM: Bernie Sanders remains ahead. Plenty of Hillary-friendly areas are still counting votes though, including Detroit and Flint.

Michigan Democratic Primary, March 8th, 2016
70% reporting as of 7:48 PM Pacific

Candidate Percentage Votes
Bernie Sanders 410,181 50.9%
Hillary Clinton 380,679 47.2%
Other candidates 15,348 1.9%

UPDATE, 8:22 PM: Bernie Sanders has stuck to his lead in Michigan like peanut butter sticking to jelly. Clinton is running out of time and votes.

Michigan Democratic Primary, March 8th, 2016
84% reporting as of 8:22 PM Pacific

Candidate Percentage Votes
Bernie Sanders 478,351 49.9%
Hillary Clinton 461,365 48.1%
Other candidates 18,880 2.0%

UPDATE, 9:30 PM: The projections are in… and Bernie wins!

Michigan Democratic Primary, March 8th, 2016
95% reporting as of 9:30 PM Pacific (4,592 of 4,830 precincts)

Candidate Percentage Votes National Delegates (est.)
Bernie Sanders 50.0% 561,379 65
Hillary Clinton 48.% 539,812 57
Other 1.9% 21,368 0

Washington’s longtime Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen announces his retirement

In a noon speech today before the Washington State Senate, longtime Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen announced that he has decided to retire from public life after five terms and won’t seek reelection this autumn.

Owen, who has served as President of the Washington State Senate since January 1997 — also filling in for Governors Gary Locke, Chris Gregoire, and Jay Inslee at times — made his intentions known in a speech from the rostrum.

“Nearly twenty years ago I took a much underused office and with the help of many people that worked in my office over the years, made something significant out of it that I am very proud of,” Owen told the Senate and many assembled guests.

“But now I will be leaving this office when this term is up next January. I will leave it for the next Lieutenant Governor to build upon, to make it even better. Of course I sincerely hope that the voters choose a person that cares as much about the dignity of this place, about this institution, as I do.”

“And most of all I cannot express how important I believe that it is for the person who follows me to carry on what I believe to be the hallmark of my twenty years as President of the Senate, the true unequivocal commitment to nonpartisan running and decision making before this body.”

Wrapping up his remarks, he said: “To all of you here in the senate and across the rotunda in the house, I thank you for the work you do, the commitment and sacrifices I know many of you have to make to be here. I truly thank those that stood by and helped me i n my time of need just as I have steadfastly done for all of you whenever I was asked over the last nearly twenty years.”

“I am very appreciative of the time you have allowed me today to share these thoughts with you. And finally, to the people of the great State of Washington, who put their trust in me as a Shelton City Finance Commissioner, as a member of t he House of Representatives, as a State Senator and finally, as your Lieutenant Governor. It was a rare privilege and a great honor.”

Upon concluding his speech, he was lauded with a standing ovation, and many senators rose on points of personal privilege to thank him for his years of service.

Governor Inslee also paid tribute to Owen in a statement.

“I join seven million Washingtonians in thanking Brad Owen for his longtime service to the state of Washington,” said Inslee. “Starting on the Shelton City Commission and then the House of Representatives and Senate, Brad’s four decades of representing his community have left an impact on our state. As the presiding officer of the Senate for the past twenty years, his steady hand and leadership has helped maintain order and civility in a sea of change.”

“From his work mentoring youth and leading the fight against substance abuse, to promoting economic development to grow our economy, Brad’s dedication and work for the people of his community and all Washingtonians has been paramount.”

“Brad has always hit the bull’s-eye as an archer and Lieutenant Governor. And after forty years in service to the people of Washington, I’m sure Brad is looking forward to a few more fishing and hunting trips next year. Trudi and I wish him and Linda all the best in whatever their future holds.”

Anticipating Owen’s retirement, four Democratic legislators have already announced their intentions to seek the office he holds. State Senator Cyrus Habib, State Senator Karen Fraser, and State Representative Jim Moeller have active campaigns, while State Senator Steve Hobbs has said he’s exploring a run.

Back in the late summer of 2015, Owen filed paperwork with the PDC for a 2016 campaign, but it appears he only did so in order to be able to accept checks he’d gotten in the mail. Owen did not actively fundraise before the session freeze, even though other Democrats were jumping into the race.

Owen said publicly he would think about his political future and announce a decision after or near the end of the 2016 short session — which he has now done.

Owen will leave office a little less than a year from now with a distinguished legacy.

A stickler for the Constitution and for decorum, Owen has been a dependable ally in the fight against Tim Eyman’s initiative factory.

Owen is one of the few people in the statehouse willing to repeatedly stand up to and discipline the notorious and incredibly obnoxious Pam Roach, an Eyman cohort. Last year, Owen put a stop to Senate Republicans’ attempts to subvert the Constitution by requiring a two-thirds vote to advance revenue bills. Owen struck down a rules change pushed through by Senate Republicans as unconstitutional.

And he courageously banned firearms from the Senate galleries, in a noble effort to keep the Senate a safe workplace and friendly environment for visitors.

We at NPI are greatly appreciative of Brad’s service to our state and wish him well as he enters the next chapter of his life. We’ll miss seeing him behind the rostrum. His successor definitely has big shoes to fill.

Bernie opposes Ex-Im. Will it “cost him” in Washington State’s Democratic caucuses? No.

Last night’s Democratic presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders included a lengthy exchange over an issue of concern to Washington State’s political leadership: the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank, which members of Washington’s congressional delegation fought hard to protect and then to reauthorize after Republicans shamefully allowed its charter to expire.

The candidates disagree over whether the bank is a good idea. Hillary Clinton supports it; Bernie Sanders opposes it. Each candidate spoke to their position around midway through the debate, as we can see from the transcript (be warned, in the interest of offering fuller context, this is going to be a lengthy excerpt):

CLINTON: You know, if we’re going to argue about the 1990s instead of talking about the future, which I’d much prefer because I think every election is about the future, and you all deserve to know what we will do to help you have a brighter future — but, if we are going to talk about the 1990s, I think it’s only fair to say that at the end of the 1990s, after two terms of my husband’s presidency, the unemployment rate in Michigan was 4.4 percent.

There had been a net increase of 54,000 manufacturing jobs. There had been a net increase of 653,000 jobs overall.

And, one of the ways jobs were brought to, and grown here in Michigan was through something called the Export-Import Bank which helped a lot of businesses, particularly small businesses, be able to export around the world.

Senator Sanders opposes that. I think we’re in a race for exports. I think China, Germany, everybody else supports their businesses. Here in Michigan there’s been $11 billion dollars in recent years used to support exports, primarily from small businesses.

I favor that, he’s opposed it. I want to do everything I can for us to compete and win in the global economy…

COOPER: Senator Sanders…

CLINTON: … and that’s what I will do as president…

COOPER: I just want to explain to viewers what the Export- Import Bank is, in case everybody is not quite as wonkish as everybody on this stage here. The Export-Import Bank, it’s a federal agency, it gives loans to companies that export American products. Senator Sanders, you do oppose it. The vast majority of the bank’s customers are small businesses, 176 right here in Michigan.

What do you say to small business owners….

SANDERS: I’ll tell you what I say…

COOPER: Who rely on the bank to make their company profitable…

SANDERS: I’ll tell you what I say. Do you know what the other name of the Export-Import Bank is? What it’s called in Washington [D.C.]? It’s called the bank of Boeing because Boeing itself gets 40 percent of the money discharged by the Export-Import Bank.

Seventy-five percent of the funds going from the federal government, the Export-Import Bank, goes to large, profitable corporations. Many of these corporations have shut down in America, and have gone abroad to exploit poor people.

You know what? I don’t think it’s a great idea for the American taxpayer to have to subsidize through corporate welfare profitable corporations who downsize in the United States of America.

COOPER: Senator…

SANDERS: Seventy-Five percent of that money goes to large profitable corporations.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, you are the only member of the Democratic caucus to vote against it. You’re agreeing with Senator Ted Cruz on this, why is he right and the Democrats wrong?

SANDERS: Well, let me tell you, I don’t want to break the bad news.

(LAUGHTER)

SANDERS: Democrats are not always right. Democrats have often supported corporate welfare…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Democrats have supported disastrous trade agreements, but on this issue I do not believe in corporate welfare, and in fact, Secretary Clinton may know or not know, but as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I worked hard and successfully to make sure that at least 20 percent of the money went to small businesses which is where it should go and not to profitable corporations and downsizing in our country.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: When I traveled around the world on your behalf as Secretary of State and went to 112 countries, one thing I saw everywhere was how European and Asian countries were supporting their companies back in their countries, to be able to make sales and contracts in a lot of the rest of the world. In fact, without the export-import bank, supporting businesses of all sizes — I believe more jobs would be lost here at home and more jobs literally would be exported. Instead of exporting products, we would be exporting jobs.

I just believe that Senator Sanders took that lonely position because most of us who saw the results — I saw it as a senator from New York. Your Senators saw it here in Michigan. They can give you the names of 240 companies in Michigan that have been helped.

There is a company in Levonia being helped, there are companies all over this state. I know, if we are going to compete and win in the global economy, we can’t let every other country support their companies and we take a hands off approach. I will not agree with that.

COOPER: I’m going to let you respond but I just want to push back on this. Senator Sanders is correct, the majority of the money does go Boeing, does go to companies like Caterpillar.

Do they need this money?

CLINTON: I will tell you what, Anderson, after I investigated it, I concluded they did and here’s why. There two big plane manufacturers in the world, there’s Airbus and Boeing. Airbus does everything it can to get contracts to sell planes everywhere in the world. We don’t have as quite an aggressive outreach from our government.

I did go in many places around the world to sell American products because the alternatives were usually European, Asian, primarily Chinese products. That to me was an unacceptable concession.

So yes, Boeing and other big companies get support just like their competitors do from the companies that they are from in the countries that provide the support.

COOPER: Thank you.

Senator Sanders?

SANDERS: Isn’t it tragic that the large multinational corporations making billions of dollars a year, shutting down in America, going to China, going to Mexico? Absolutely they need a handout from the American middle class — I don’t think so.

It should be noted that the Export-Import Bank doesn’t merely benefit large companies like Boeing and Caterpillar. It also benefits small businesses that export goods to foreign markets. Other countries help their companies make sales by providing financing, including the European countries where Airbus does business. Why shouldn’t the United States of America help its companies?

“In FY 2015, nearly 90 percent of EXIM Bank’s transactions — more than 2,300 — directly supported American small businesses,” says a fact sheet on Ex-Im’s website.

It should also be noted hat Ex-Im actually generates money for the United States Treasury. As the fact sheet also says: “Over the past two decades, the Bank has generated nearly $7 billion more than the cost of its operations. That’s money EXIM Bank generates for the American taxpayer, to help reduce the federal deficit.”

In our view, the Export-Import Bank is a valuable public service that the federal government provides to American businesses large and small. We support it.

Bernie Sanders does not support Ex-Im. That may bother Washington State’s political leadership and editorial boards. But will it cost Sanders support in the upcoming Democratic presidential precinct caucuses on March 26th, as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer‘s Joel Connelly has suggested? We don’t think so.

The basis for our belief is simple.

Ex-Im matters to many Washingtonians, but we’re guessing most caucusgoers will be caucusing for the candidate who they trust and identify with, in spite of any disagreements they may have with the candidates on the issues.

That’s usually the way it is. The issues are certainly relevant to informed voters, but issues simply don’t drive voting decisions for most folks. Trust does. People vote their values, and they vote their identity. Authenticity matters.

There’s no evidence that suggests that any significant number of people decide who to vote for by pulling out scorecards when they fill out ballots, and running through a laundry list of issue positions before calculating who they’ll fill in the oval for.

Furthermore, Washington State’s Democratic caucuses are an exercise in grassroots politics. Washington State’s editorial boards and business elites don’t control the outcome — Democratic voters and Democratic activists do, as they should!

In 2008, most of Washington State’s political leadership (including the superdelegates) backed Hillary Clinton. She enjoyed the endorsements of Jay Inslee, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Gary Locke, Ron Sims, and more.

Barack Obama was able to secure the support of Adam Smith, Greg Nickels, and then-Governor Chris Gregoire, but Clinton definitely had more elected leaders in her camp. Did it help Clinton ride to victory? Nope. Obama won a decisive victory in Washington. He swept the state, and captured most of Washington’s delegates.

Obama’s string of February victories, which included his triumph here in Washington, gave him momentum and crucial delegates. It made all the difference in the end, because Clinton kept competing through March, April, and May, only bringing her campaign to an end in June when Obama clinched the nomination.

This time around, Washington State’s political leaders are again mostly in Hillary Clinton’s corner. But that does not mean Clinton will be victorious. The fate of the caucuses will be determined by the voters and activists who show up. It’s smart that Clinton and Sanders have each opened offices here, and hired staff in an effort to get their supporters out on March 26th. May the best candidate win!

And, to those who passionately support Ex-Im and care about its future, we offer this advice: You’re better served working to educate Bernie Sanders about Ex-Im’s value than trying to use his current position against him. If he happens to become the nominee, it’s going to be important for our state that he rethink his position.

Bernie Sanders wins Maine caucuses; Marco Rubio wins Puerto Rico primary

Another day, another set of presidential nominating caucuses.

Today, Maine Democrats held their 2016 caucuses, while Puerto Rico Republicans went to the polls to cast ballots in that territory’s primary. (Residents of territories don’t get a say in which person gets elected as President, but they do get to participate in the selection of the nominees, thanks to party rules.)

In Maine, Bernie Sanders cleaned up, prevailing easily over Hillary Clinton. Marco Rubio, meanwhile, got his first real win of the nominating season, taking about three quarters of the vote in Puerto Rico’s primary. Thirty delegates are at stake in Maine and twenty-three are up for grabs in Puerto Rico.

Here are the current results in Maine:

Candidate State Convention Delegates  %  National Delegates
Bernie Sanders 2,231 delegates won  64.3%  15 (estimated)
Hillary Clinton 1,232 delegates won  35.5%  7 (estimated)

Bernie’s victory in Maine means he can now add another state to his victory column, for a total of eight. He won three states this weekend (all were caucus states), while Hillary Clinton sailed to victory in the Louisiana Democratic primary.

Sanders had a good weekend, but Clinton may well return to her winning ways on Tuesday in the Michigan and Mississippi primaries. The Sanders camp is hoping to be competitive in Michigan. It’s likely that Clinton will do very well in Mississippi, which borders Louisiana and Alabama, where she has already trounced Sanders.

Sanders’ victories this weekend give him a nice boost ahead of potential losses on Tuesday. Should Clinton beat him, he will have an opportunity to bounce back in the Northern Marianas Democratic caucuses next weekend, where eleven delegates will be at stake. After that, it’s on to “Mini Tuesday”.

Sanders will definitely still be a candidate at the end of March, when Democrats in Washington State hold their caucuses. Alaska and Hawaii Democrats will (not coincidentally) be caucusing on the same day — Saturday, March 26th.

Now, here are the results in Puerto Rico, with 25% reporting:

Candidate  %  Votes
Marco Rubio 73.6% 6,159 votes
Donald Trump 13% 1,092 votes
Ted Cruz 9% 757 votes
John Kasich 1.2% 98 votes

It certainly looks like Marco Rubio is going to end the weekend with a much-needed win. Puerto Rico may be a territory, but that hardly means it’s not important. In fact, Puerto Rico has more delegates than the state of Hawaii, which will hold its Republican caucuses this coming Tuesday. (19 delegates are at stake.)

Still, Rubio’s path is a steep one. Ted Cruz was the top choice of Republicans in Kansas and Maine in yesterday’s Republican caucuses… not him. Cruz has won more states than either of Donald Trump’s two other rivals.

But unfortunately for Cruz, neither Rubio nor John Kasich are heeding his calls to drop out and support him… which just goes to show that his influence in key circles in the party pales in comparison to his popularity with the base.

Cruz can argue that it’s a two-man race between himself and Donald Trump. But Rubio and Kaisch’s home states will be voting a week from this Tuesday. Neither man is going to leave the race prior to competing there. If Rubio loses Florida to Trump, it’s hard to see how he continues on.

Kasich, meanwhile, can’t afford to lose Ohio, as he has yet to win a single state. Even Rubio has gotten over that symbolic hurdle. Kasich is only still in the race because he came in second in New Hampshire. But he still lost that state to Trump.

Liveblogging the seventh 2016 Democratic presidential debate from the great Northwest

Good evening, and welcome to NPI’s live coverage of the seventh Democratic presidential debate of the 2016 cycle. I will be watching and sharing impressions of the debate as it progresses. This debate is being held in Flint, Michigan, and is being broadcast by CNN. You can livestream the debate from CNN’s website.

There are two candidates left seeking the Democratic nomination for President of the United States: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Tonight’s debate will be the first since Super Tuesday. The next debate is scheduled for March 9th, 2016 at Miami Dade College in Miami, Florida.

The moderator will be CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

We will begin our live coverage at 5 PM, when the candidates take the stage.

UPDATE, 5:04 PM: We heard really strong opening statements from Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who each called on Republican Governor Rick Snyder to resign (if he won’t, Clinton suggested he should be recalled.)

UPDATE, 5:07 PM: Refreshingly, the first question comes from a black woman who lives in Flint, Michigan. She asked: “As President, what will you do to help the people of Flint regain their trust in government?”

Clinton took a stab at answering the question first. She says she supports the actions taken to date by President Obama to help the people of Flint, such as expanding Medicaid. “I would concentrate resources on this city,” she says.

UPDATE, 5:08 PM: “Children in America should not be poisoned,” Sanders says, saying if state and local government can’t or won’t act, the federal government must step in and act. People should not be paying a bill for poisoned water, and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) should be coming in check the health of the people of Flint. Finally, Sanders says, we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, including our pipes and water treatment systems.

UPDATE, 5:13 PM: Anderson Cooper asked Hillary Clinton if she would fire the head of the EPA over the catastrophe in Flint. Clinton says she would hold accountable everyone who knew about the problem and did not act to fix it. Sanders concurred and said that he would do the dame.

UPDATE, 5:18 PM: This has been a good debate so far, but Anderson Cooper’s framing of questions has been based on right wing concepts about government, which is bad. This is a Democratic debate; the framing should be progressive.

UPDATE, 5:19 PM: Clinton and Sanders fielded a question from a skeptical member of the media who basically asked, what took you so long to come to Flint, and how can we trust that you’ll still care about us after Flint fades from the headlines? Both stressed that they would not forget about about Flint.

UPDATE, 5:20 PM: We’re actually seeing real people at the microphone asking questions in this debate. How refreshing!

Current question: “How will you encourage companies to keep factories here in the U.S. instead of moving them to other countries?”

UPDATE, 5:25 PM: Sanders is going after Clinton on her trade record, criticizing her for supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Clinton tried to hit back by criticizing Sanders for voting against the legislation that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), also known as the bank bailout.

UPDATE, 5:26 PM: Clinton says she voted against CAFTA while a senator, and opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership now that she knows what’s in it.

This is starting to feel like a good old fashioned debate…

UPDATE; 5:30 PM: Sanders defended his record, saying he wanted the wealthy to pay to bail out Wall Street, not middle and low income families, and that he supported rescuing the auto industry and the subsequent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that President Obama asked Congress for.

UPDATE, 5:36 PM: We sort of segued from trade to Wall Street accountability, but Anderson Cooper is bringing the discussion back to trade by showing a Bernie Sanders tweet critical of Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE, 5:40 PM: For the first time in the Democratic debates so far this year, we’re talking specifically about the Export-Import Bank, which Clinton supports and Sanders opposes. Sanders was alone among the Senate Democratic caucus in opposing the reauthorization of the bank, which was a major priority for Washington’s congressional delegation last year.

UPDATE, 5:42 PM: Sanders criticized the Export-Import Bank as the “Bank of Boeing”, suggesting the bank is really just another form of corporate welfare. Clinton pointed out that Boeing is one of only two major commercial airplane manufacturers in the world, and that Airbus, Boeing’s European competitor, receives financing and subsidies from the governments of France and Britain.

UPDATE, 5:45 PM: We’re heading to our first commercial break.

UPDATE, 5:51 PM: We’re back from the break, and talking about gun responsibility. The question is “What will you do to address the epidemic of mass shootings in the United States?” Clinton is answering first.

UPDATE, 5:53 PM: Clinton says we need stronger gun safety laws, and we need to have a conversation about changing our gun culture. Sanders says he agrees with Secretary Clinton that we should close loopholes in the background check system and prohibit sales of assault weaponry designed to kill people.

UPDATE, 6:01 PM: The candidates just engaged in a pretty lengthy back-and-forth about legislation that shielded gun manufacturers from liability. Sanders voted for it, while Clinton voted against it, and it’s been a major point of contention in this and past debates.

UPDATE, 6:02 PM: We’ve moved on to the topic of criminal justice. Don Lemon asked why black people should trust Clinton to end the era of mass incarceration, given that she supported the 1994 get tough on crime bill signed by Bill Clinton?

UPDATE, 6:03 PM: Clinton says some of the provisions in that legislation haven’t worked and she favors their repeal. Sanders, who voted for the same legislation, pointed out that he voted for the bill because it had good provisions in it as well as bad provisions, and on balance, he believed the good outweighed the bad.

UPDATE, 6:15 PM: CNN’s Don Lemon is asking the questions now (they’re not very good questions, but the candidates are fielding them pretty well). The candidates have been talking about how they’d improve race relations and how their personal experiences have shaped their views on issues of equity.

UPDATE, 6:25 PM: Finally, a question about education policy. “Where does fixing schools fall on your priority list?”

UPDATE, 6:27 PM: “We should be ashamed of how we treat our kids and our senior citizens,” Bernie Sanders says, criticizing Republicans in Congress who fight for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but can’t find the money to recruit and retain good teachers in our nation’s poorest neighborhoods.

UPDATE, 6:28 PM: Clinton says she would bring back a federal government initiative to modernize and weatherize schools in communities that can’t pay for those improvements. Clinton also says she’d set up an “education SWAT team” (for lack of a better phrase) in the Department of Education to help the federal government figure out how to better support teachers.

UPDATE, 6:31 PM: The bad questions keep on coming from Anderson Cooper. “Do you think unions protect bad teachers?” Seriously? That right wing canard?

“A lot of people have been blaming and scapegoating teachers,” Clinton pointed out in response, rejecting the framing of Cooper’s question.

UPDATE, 6:34 PM: We’re back on the topic of infrastructure. Don Lemon asked Clinton if her plan is ambitious enough to tackle the big infrastructure deficit, which engineers have estimated will cost at least a trillion dollars to fix.

UPDATE, 6:36 PM: Yay, a question on fracking from a young Democrat! “Do you support fracking?” Clinton gets to answer first.

UPDATE, 6:37 PM: Clinton hedged. She says she doesn’t support fracking when local communities are against it, or when companies refuse to say what chemicals they’re using. That would mean she opposes fracking in most instances.

UPDATE, 6:38 PM: Sanders says his answer is a simple no… he opposes fracking. “Fracking is doing terrible things to water supplies all over this country,” he says.

UPDATE, 6:41 PM: Sanders and Clinton are both touting their plans to address the climate crisis. Clinton says her focus is on how we make the transition.

UPDATE, 6:45 PM: Another break.

Before Anderson Cooper went to commercial, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each earned loud applause for pointing out tonight’s  Democratic debate has once again been substantive and meaningful, while the Republican debate was another circus in which the candidates talked about the size of their body parts.

UPDATE, 6:49 PM: Sigh. First thing Anderson Cooper did after CNN came back from the break is ask about Hillary’s emails. To paraphrase Bernie Sanders: We’re sick and tired of hearing about the emails!

UPDATE, 6:53 PM: And now, a question about God. “Do you believe God is relevant, and why do you feel that way?” Sanders is fielding it beautifully.

UPDATE, 6:58 PM: When it was her turn, Clinton did an outstanding job, too. She was asked, do you pray, and if so, who do you pray for?

UPDATE, 7:01 PM: We just heard closing statements. Clinton and Sanders did a good job wrapping up. Sanders circled back to the Flint water crisis, and Clinton looked forward to the general election, saying she would run an uplifting campaign no matter who Republicans pluck out of the gutter to be their nominee.

That’s the end of our live coverage for tonight. Thanks for following along!

Secretary of State hopeful Tina Podlodowski to emcee NPI’s 2016 Spring Fundraising Gala

Tonight, with NPI’s 2016 Spring Fundraising Gala just four weeks away, we are thrilled to announce that we have a wonderful Master of Ceremonies lined up to run this year’s speaking program: Tina Podlodowski, former Seattle City Councilmember and current candidate for Secretary of State.

Tina Podlodowski

Tina Podlodowski

Tina has a long history of public service in Seattle and the greater Puget Sound region. After working for Microsoft in the late 1980s and early 1990s, she joined the Seattle City Council, where she chaired the Public Safety, Health, and Technology Committee and the Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Planning Committee. She was involved in passing several ordinances to guarantee LGBT and worker rights.

In the early 2000s, after leaving the Council, she ran the Lifelong AIDS Alliance and then the Big Brothers & Big Sisters of Puget Sound. She was a senior vice president for Porter Novelli during much of President Barack Obama’s first term, and became a senior adviser to Ed Murray following his election as Mayor in 2013.

Tina is now running to become Washington’s next Secretary of State, in what will be one of the nation’s most contested SOS racees. Incumbent Kim Wyman is the latest in a long line of Republicans to have held the office since the 1950s. She is also the last statewide elected Republican official on the Left Coast.

Since Wyman was elected in 2012, Washington has had three straight consecutive elections with poor turnout. Last year, we set a record for the worst turnout in state history, at least since we started registering voters in the 1930s. Podlodowski believes we need new leadership to address this crisis. She says she believes the state needs a “chief voting officer”, not merely a chief elections administrator.

At NPI, we believe participation is vital to the health of a democracy. While we don’t endorse candidates for office, we believe contested elections are a good thing. Voters have more reason to participate when they have credible candidates to choose from. By stepping up to run — which is no small sacrifice — Tina is opening up a new chapter in her history of distinguished public service.

Tina is a fabulous speaker, and we’re so glad to have her as the host of our most important event of the year. We hope you’ll consider joining us and Tina for our eighth Spring Fundraising Gala. If you haven’t yet bought your ticket yet, we urge you to do so now using one of the buttons below.

A household ticket admits all the members of an immediate family and is a good value if you plan to attend with your spouse or children. (The gala is a family-friendly event, and young people of all ages are welcome!).

These are our ticket rates:

  • Individual ($75, admits one person)
  • Household ($120, admits an entire family)
  • Living Lightly ($25, for students and activists on limited incomes)

Buy a ticket to the gala

$120

$75

$25

Click above to buy a ticket using a credit card.

Here’s what else you can expect at our 2016 Spring Fundraising Gala:

  • A full dinner buffet with vegetarian and vegan choices
  • Beer and wine selections from our cash bar
  • Opportunities to mingle with fellow activists and elected leaders
  • A chance to win a scrumptious dessert for your table at our second annual Dessert Dash, organized by our Host Committee
  • A family-friendly atmosphere

If you’d like to RSVP for the gala on Facebook, you can do so here.

Students who want to volunteer to help put on the event can get in the door free. If you’re interested in volunteering, please get in touch with us.

In the weeks to come, we’ll be sharing more details about our 2016  gala, including the names of our other speakers. We hope you’ll help us make our biggest event of the year a success by buying your ticket and committing to attend.

See you on April 1st!

It’s Super Tuesday! Here’s a rundown of who is winning in the fourteen states voting today

We are now out of February, and into the second month of nominating season. The presidential sweepstakes continue with Super Tuesday, one of the most important events on the calendar. Eleven states are holding primaries and caucuses today. Most of those states have both Democratic and Republican contests, but a few only have contests between candidates from one of the two major parties.

Here’s the list:

State/Territory  # of (D) Delegates # of (R) Delegates Type
Alabama 60 50 (P) Open
Alaska Caucus (R)  N/A 28 (P) Closed
American Samoa Caucus (D) 10  N/A Open
Arkansas 37 40 (P) Open
Colorado Caucuses 79 37 (Unbound) Closed
Democrats Abroad 17  N/A Closed
Georgia 116 76 (P) Open
Massachusetts 116 42 (P) Mixed
Minnesota Caucuses 93 38 (P) Open
North Dakota Caucuses (R) N/A 28 (Unbound) Closed
Oklahoma 42 43 (P) Closed
Tennessee 76 58 (P) Open
Texas 252 155 (P*) Open
Vermont 26 16 (P) Open
Virginia 110 49 (P) Open
Wyoming Caucuses (R)  N/A 29 (Unbound) Closed

And here’s a rundown of mass media projections so far. These are current as of midnight Pacific Time (first moments of March 2nd). We’ll begin with the Democrats:

Winner: Hillary Clinton

  1. Arkansas
  2. Alabama
  3. Georgia
  4. Massachusetts
  5. Tennessee
  6. Texas
  7. Virginia

Winner: Bernie Sanders

  1. Vermont
  2. Oklahoma
  3. Minnesota
  4. Colorado

And now, the Republicans.

Winner: Donald Trump

  1. Alabama
  2. Arkansas
  3. Massachusetts
  4. Georgia
  5. Tennessee
  6. Vermont
  7. Virginia

Winner: Ted Cruz

  1. Texas
  2. Oklahoma
  3. Alaska

Winner: Marco Rubio

  1. Minnesota

Several states have not reported any results yet, so there will be more contests to add these columns as the night goes on. So far, though, frontrunners Clinton and Trump have routed their opponents in several major states.

Clinton and Sanders have both spoken to their supporters as of 6:06 PM Pacific. Clinton basked in the glow of victory in half a dozen states, while Sanders relished his big win in his home state of Vermont and vowed to push on. Both candidates mostly hewed to themes and lines from their stump speeches. Sanders spoke from Burlington, Vermont, while Clinton spoke from Miami, Florida.

Establishment darling Marco Rubio, who has yet to win a single state (though he was ahead in Arkansas for awhile earlier tonight and could win Minnesota) began speaking around the same time that Hillary Clinton wrapped up her remarks.

MARCH 2ND MIDNIGHT UPDATE: Projections for all states are now in.

Frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had very good nights, with each winning seven states. Bernie Sanders won four states, while Ted Cruz won three and Marco Rubio won one. Republicans John Kasich and Ben Carson did not win any states, though Kasich was competitive with Trump in Vermont.

Six states and Puerto Rico have nominating events this weekend. Most of those events are caucuses. Louisiana, however, will be holding a primary.

No, tablets aren’t dead

Every so often, AOL-owned technology blog TechCrunch publishes a piece written by a contributor that bizarrely declares something that remains in widespread usage to be dead. MG Siegler infamously proclaimed the mouse to be dead in 2010, and later that same year, in the span of a single week, TechCrunch writers astonishingly proclaimed that the phone call, email, RSS, and the MP3 were all “dead”.

Of course, none of those things were dead then, and they aren’t dead now, six years later. Sadly, TechCrunch contributors continue to call things dead, as Romain Dillet did yesterday with this post, titled “Tablets are dead“. Its premise:

In 2010, tablets were supposed to be the new hot thing. Apple released the first iPad, Samsung was working on the Galaxy Tab and countless others were about to flood the market with Android tablets. Six years later, there weren’t any tablets at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Companies and consumers have moved on.

Tablets are dead.

Yes, in 2010, tablets were the hot new thing. Perhaps the iPad-inspired tablet craze was a fad. But just because sales of tablets have slowed and companies are no longer racing to put out so many new models doesn’t mean tablets are dead.

Even Dillet admits as much in his post:

First, tablets are now a commodity. You can find dozens of perfectly fine tablets for less than $200. And there’s no differentiating factor between Android tablets. As a result, companies are not making a profit on them. Second, chances are you already have a tablet at home and it’s working fine. There’s no reason why you should upgrade it — it probably runs Netflix, Facebook and the Kindle app. It has a browser and your emails. Long replacement cycles mean you don’t need to pay attention to the new and shiny tablets.

If people are happy with the tablets they have, that could help explain why there are fewer tablet product launches than there used to be. But tablets aren’t suddenly dead just because they have ceased to be a hot new thing.

Yet that is what Dillet seems to be saying:

So it’s time to face the truth. Tablets had a good run, but won’t be around for much longer. The iPad is still selling well, but Apple is trying hard to differentiate the iPad from the iPhone, creating the next generation of laptops.

Tablets aren’t going anywhere, just as laptops, desktops, mice, phone calls, RSS, email, and the MP3 aren’t going anywhere. All of these things will continue to exist. There will still be a market for tablets, and companies will still make them, just as there continues to be markets for paper books, vinyl records, and compact discs.

Hilariously, even after declaring tablets dead, Dillet ended his post with this:

Tablets can still make a comeback. They need to become good laptop replacements, or a digital canvas for artists, or something else. But something needs to change and soon. Current tablets prove that you should never bet against the smartphone.

How can tablets make a comeback if they’re dead, Romain? Way to hedge.

I honestly don’t understand why TechCrunch’s writers have a fixation with pronouncing things to be dead. It’s weird. It would have been easy enough to publish a post suggesting that tablet sales are in decline, and thoughtfully ponder the future of that product segment. But instead of offering thoughtful analysis backed with a nuanced headline, Dillet opted to generate clickbait.

Too bad. TechCrunch is capable of aiming higher, and when it does, it’s a worthy competitor to Ars Technica and other technology sites.

Early numbers suggest Hillary Clinton has scored a big victory in South Carolina

As expected, it took only a few seconds following the closing of polls in South Carolina for cable and broadcast news networks to project that Hillary Clinton had won. Though the actual numbers are still trickling in, it looks like Clinton has scored an impressive victory. Presently, she has around four-fifths of the vote.

South Carolina Democratic Primary
13 of 2240 Precincts Reporting – 1%
Name Votes Percentage
Hillary Clinton 9,747 80%
Bernie Sanders 2,437 20%
Martin O’Malley 37 0%
Willie Wilson 37 0%

Clinton declared victory immediately.

“To South Carolina, to the volunteers at the heart of our campaign, to the supporters who power it: thank you. -H,” she tweeted.

Sanders, meanwhile, wasted no time conceding defeat.

“I congratulate Hillary Clinton on her victory in South Carolina,” he said in a statement. “Let me be clear on one thing tonight. This campaign is just beginning. We won a decisive victory in New Hampshire. She won a decisive victory in South Carolina. Now it’s on to Super Tuesday. Our grassroots political revolution is growing state by state, and we won’t stop now.”

Exit polling paid for by mass media outlets suggest that Clinton did extraordinarily well with black voters, accounting for her large margins so far.

Sanders did better with younger voters and white voters, but still lost those demographic groups to Clinton. He will wind up with a few delegates from South Carolina, but Clinton will have a supermajority.

Clinton arrived at her victory party in high spirits.

Beaming, she said: “I am so greatly appreciative… Today, you sent a message. When we stand together, there is no barrier too big to break.”

“We are not taking anything, or anybody, for granted,” she added, saying the time had come to “take the campaign national.”

Eight years ago, South Carolina gave Barack Obama a big victory in the 2008 Democratic presidential contest, after Clinton had beaten him in New Hampshire. This time around, Clinton lost New Hampshire, but won in South Carolina. That’s a trade her campaign can live with, especially considering that South Carolina has more delegates at stake than either Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada.

UPDATE, 6:04 PM: It’s a shellacking, no question.

South Carolina Democratic Primary
1975 of 2240 Precincts Reporting – 88%
Name Votes Vote %
Hillary Clinton 232,711 74%
Bernie Sanders 81,033 26%
Willie Wilson 1,234 0%
Martin O’Malley 649 0%

Sound Transit celebrates new ridership milestones, advances engineering for Redmond & Federal Way light rail extensions

Happy news to share this afternoon: Sound Transit revealed today that demand for its express bus, commuter rail, and light rail services is booming, while also announcing that it has restored funding for engineering work on future light rail extensions to Federal Way and downtown Redmond, where NPI is headquartered.

Sound Transit, as most Cascadia Advocate readers probably know, is the multi-county regional transit authority that voters created in 1996 to build a high capacity transit network for the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, and their suburbs. ST’s early years were rocky, but today, it is a model public agency, delivering projects on time (or even ahead of schedule) and under budget.

Sound Transit’s services just continue to grow in popularity (as we have always believed that they would.) The latest ridership figures bear this out:

Sound Transit riders once again set all-time annual records in 2015 for boardings on commuter trains, buses and light rail in central Puget Sound. Sound Transit had an estimated 34.9 million total boardings last year, a 6 percent increase over 2014. Average weekday boardings were 116,839 in 2015.

And this year, with three new light rail stations opening (including two less than a month from now!) we will certainly be seeing another ridership increase.

“We continue to set new records for ridership by providing fast, reliable alternatives to driving,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and King County Executive Dow Constantine, touting the figures in a news release. “More people than ever in our region are choosing transit to get to their destination.”

Here’s the breakdown by mode:

Average weekday boardings

  • Sounder commuter rail: 14,600 – a 15 percent increase from 2014
  • Link light rail: 35,573 – an 8 percent increase from 2014
  • ST Express regional buses: 62,981 – a 3 percent increase from 2014

Annual boardings

  • Sounder commuter rail: 3.8 million, 13 percent increase from 2014
  • Link light rail: 11.7 million, 7 percent increase from 2014
  • ST Express regional buses: 18.3 million, 4 percent increase from 2014

As Link continues to expand north (to Lynnwood), south (to Federal Way), and east (to Redmond), ridership will climb dramatically. It won’t be much longer before light rail becomes the mode with the highest overall ridership.

Of course, there’s room for the Express bus network to grow as well. As the rail spine grows longer, Sound Transit ought to be able to increase the frequency and quality of service to communities that are currently underserved.

Getting that rail spine built out as quickly as possible is a top priority for the Sound Transit Board. That’s why, today, the Board voted to authorize staff to spend the money to move forward with the design for Link extensions to Federal Way and downtown Redmond. This work was supposed to be part of the 2008 Sound Transit 2 package, but it was put on hold after the Great Recession wiped out a whopping $4.2 billion from projected sales tax revenue.

The economy has improved, and sales tax revenue has rebounded somewhat above what was forecasted. Consequently, Sound Transit now has the resources to do this vitally important engineering work. It’s very good news.

“Extending light rail to Federal Way and downtown Redmond has remained a top priority for Sound Transit,” said Constantine. “Restoring funding for the next phase of project design brings us another step closer to connecting more people to our growing regional mass transit system.”

Funding still doesn’t exist to actually build light rail to Federal Way and downtown Redmond, but these projects are both a lock for inclusion in the forthcoming Sound Transit 3 package that the Board is expected to send to voters this year.

Tim Eyman, Washington’s infamous purveyor of destructive initiatives, is presently attempting to qualify an initiative to the ballot that would wipe out one of the funding sources for Sound Transit 3. This measure, I-1421, would also repeal state-level funding for Amtrak Cascades and freight mobility projects.

NPI is already working to organize opposition to Eyman’s I-1421 so that we stand the best chance possible of defeating it should it qualify for the ballot.

Hillary Clinton projected as the narrow victor in the Nevada Democratic caucuses

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will wind up eking out a narrow victory over Senator Bernie Sanders in the Nevada Democratic caucuses, if projections by cable and broadcast news networks are accurate.

With 72.4% reporting, Clinton had 52.3% support, compared to 47.7% for Bernie Sanders. When all is said and done, she will probably have at least one to two more delegates than Sanders. There are only forty-three delegates at stake.

Nevada is the third state to hold a Democratic presidential nominating event in the 2016 cycle, following Iowa and New Hampshire.

Clinton wasted no time declaring victory, sending out texts and tweets thanking her Nevada Democratic supporters and looking forward to the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday (March 1st, 2016).

Clinton thanks Nevada supporters

Clinton thanks Nevada supporters

“The feeling is mutual, Nevada,” Clinton’s campaign tweeted.

“To everyone who turned out in every corner of Nevada with determination and heart: This is your win. Thank you. -H,” Clinton tweeted, in a message signed with her first initial to signify that it was written by her.

Staffers also changed the avatar of the campaign’s Twitter account to a graphic professing its gratitude for the outcome.

Team Sanders, meanwhile, emphasized caucus entrance polling that found that 79% of voters believe Bernie “cares about people like me.” The Sanders campaign announced that Bernie had telephoned Hillary to offer his congratulations on his victory, and noted that only a few weeks ago, Clinton was believed to have a big lead in the state.

“I want to thank the people of Nevada for the support they have given us and the boost that their support will give us as we go forward,” Sanders tweeted.

He added, “I am very proud of the campaign we ran. Five weeks ago we were 25 points behind and we ended up in a very close election.”

“Proud that we brought many working and young people into the political process. We have the wind at our back as we head into Super Tuesday.”

Clinton and Sanders are each set to speak shortly, addressing their supporters.

“This one’s for you… I want to congratulate Senator Sanders on a hard fought race,” a jubilant Clinton said at her Nevada campaign headquarters.

She took pains to stress that she supports holding Wall Street accountable and taking action to arrest and reverse the flood of dark money in our elections.

“We aren’t a single-issue country,” Clinton declared midway through her speech, in what appeared to be a subtle jab at Sanders’ campaign.

“We need more than a plan for the big banks. America needs a raise.” Clinton seemed comfortable and poised on stage, touching on a wide array of policy directions and basking in the glow of victory with her supporters.

“The fight goes on. The future we want is within our grasp!” she declared as she concluded her remarks and was joined onstage by President Bill Clinton.

Bernie Sanders thanks Nevada

Supporters of Sanders noted that he held Clinton to a narrow victory in Nevada

Sanders, addressing his supporters, also delivered a rendition of his stump speech, assailing big money in politics, income inequality, and socioeconomic injustice.

“I want to thank all of our supporters here in Nevada… I want to thank our staff for the great job that they have done. I am especially proud that we are bringing working people and young people into the political process in a way we have not seen for a very long time,” Sanders said to loud cheers.

“I believe that on Super Tuesday, we have got an excellent chance to win many of those states,” Sanders said, looking past the South Carolina Democratic primary to the next set of nominating contests. As he left the stage, he reiterated that thought, declaring: “It’s on to Super Tuesday! Thank you all very much!”

Right wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at seventy-nine

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the most senior justice on the Roberts Court and a reliable vote for the Court’s right wing bloc, has died, according to a statement released today by Chief Justice John Roberts.

“On behalf of the Court and retired Justices, I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away,” said Roberts. “He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.”

The San Antonio Express-News reported that Scalia was found dead in his room at a ranch in West Texas, where he had been staying during a quail hunting trip:

According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body. Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.

Scalia apparently died of natural causes. No foul play is suspected.

White House Deputy Principal Press Secretary Eric Schultz announced, “This afternoon the President was informed of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The President and First Lady extend their deepest condolences to Justice Scalia’s family. We’ll have additional reaction from the President later today.”

UPDATE: Following the initial publication of this post, President Obama delivered a statement from California, where he is working and vacationing.

“Alliance for Justice extends its condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of Antonin Scalia,” said AFJ’s Nan Aron in a statement. “His death creates a vacancy at a critical time in the history of the Court, the law, and our nation.”

“We urge President Obama to exercise his constitutional duty to nominate a replacement and for the Senate to fulfill its obligation to fairly and expeditiously consider the nominee. For the Senate to do otherwise would be an abdication of its responsibilities and a blow to public confidence in our democratic institutions.”

“We are confident that the President will nominate someone who understands the lives and struggles of everyday Americans, and trust that that the Supreme Court of the United States will not become a casualty of the politics of destruction, denial, and obstruction,” Aron added.

Scalia, seventy-nine, was the longest serving member of the Court, as mentioned. He was born March 11th, 1936 in Trenton, New Jersey. Scalia studied at Georgetown and Harvard, earning degrees in history and law. He worked in private practice for a number of years before becoming a law professor.

Scalia later served in the Nixon and Ford administrations. He was passed over for Solicitor General of the United States by Ford, but in 1982, Ronald Reagan nominated him for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Six years later, Reagan elevated him to the United States Supreme Court. He was unanimously confirmed on the same day as William Rehnquist.

As Associate Supreme Court Justice, Scalia made a name for himself as an unapologetic, reactionary archconservative. He became somewhat infamous for his bombast, particularly when he was on the losing side of a case.

But there were many times when he was on the winning side.

Scalia was among the five justices who ordered Florida to stop recounting ballots in the aftermath of the 2000 U.S. presidential election, in Bush v. Gore.

He was also one of the five justices responsible for one of the worst decisions in U.S. history: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which unleashed an avalanche of secret, dark money in American elections.

From the Cascadia Advocate’s archives, here is a selection of posts about major U.S. Supreme Court decisions Scalia took part in that hurt our country:

Though Justice Scalia’s positions were wrong most of the time, there were a few occasions where we felt he reached the correct conclusion.

One of those occasions was when the Supreme Court decided in 2008 to allow Sam Reed to implement the Top Two system that replaced our Montana-style open primary. Justice Scalia wisely dissented in this decision, and we believe his opinion in that case ought to have been the majority opinion.

Another was in 2010, when Scalia wrote a fine opinion concurring with the majority in Doe v. Reed, a case that originated in Washington State. (Disappointing Tim Eyman, the Court held in Doe v. Reed that states may disclose the names of people who sign initiative and referendum petitions — as Washington has long done.)

Scalia’s death will result in a very rare, massively consequential event: a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.

Were the Senate still controlled by the Democrats, President Obama could nominate someone much more progressive and reasonable to take Scalia’s place. But Republicans have already declared that they will not confirm anyone they don’t like.

Interviewed on MSNBC by Ari Melber, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham stated flatly that he would not support any nominee that was not “a consensus choice”.

Asked by Melber to name someone who might be an example of a consensus choice, Graham said “Orrin Hatch”. (Hatch is an establishment Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Utah who is quite conservative.)

Incredibly, Mitch McConnell is saying President Obama shouldn’t bother to nominate anyone at all — that his successor should be the one to nominate Scalia. Of course, Obama has nearly a year left to go in his presidency, and we think it highly unlikely the President is going to forego his responsibility of nominating a qualified jurist to fill a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.

SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein figures we can expect the vacancy to go unfilled until the 2016 elections have transpired, even if President Obama nominates someone:

The most immediate implications involve the presidential election.  President Obama of course has the power to nominate a successor, with the consent of the Senate.

In the ordinary course, because the opening was unexpected, the nomination would not be forthcoming for a couple of months and then the confirmation process would take several more months.

Theoretically, that process could conclude before the November election. But realistically, it cannot absent essentially a consensus nominee – and probably not even then, given the stakes. A Democratic president would replace a leading conservative vote on a closely divided Court. The Republican Senate will not permit such a consequential nomination – which would radically shift the balance of ideological power on the Court – to go forward.

Obama has the power to make a recess appointment (Eisenhower and Washington are among the Presidents who made recess appointments to the Supreme Court, so there is precedent), but congressional Republicans are unlikely to give him that opportunity. They’ll call pro-forma sessions from now through the end of the current Congress, so they can argue that the Senate is not in recess.

If voters elect a Democratic Senate in November, that Senate would begin meeting in early January, three weeks before President Obama’s term ends. Theoretically, Obama’s nominee could be confirmed then by a Democratic majority.

However, Senate rules still allow the minority to filibuster Supreme Court nominations, and it is likely most Republicans would filibuster to prevent a progressive jurist from taking Scalia’s place on the Court.

Democrats could vote to establish new rules for the Senate to require that Supreme Court nominees receive a confirmation vote. That would prevent them from being able to filibuster an archconservative jurist nominated by a Republican President and sent to a Republican-controlled Senate in the future. But perhaps that would be for the best. Democrats did not band together to filibuster either Roberts or Alito, and if there was ever a time to deploy the filibuster against two bad Supreme Court nominees, it was in 2005 and 2006 when Bush held the White House.

Until Scalia has a successor, the Supreme Court is now a house divided. The Roberts Court has lost its working right wing majority, and that will have profound implications for a number of cases. SCOTUSBlog explains:

The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court. Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void. Of course, if Justice Scalia’s vote was not necessary to the outcome – for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices – then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court.

If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four.  In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case.  Because it is very unlikely that a replacement will be appointed this Term, we should expect to see a number of such cases in which the lower court’s decision is “affirmed by an equally divided Court.”

The most immediate and important implications involve that union case. A conservative ruling in that case is now unlikely to issue. Other significant cases in which the Court may now be equally divided include Evenwel v. Abbott (on the meaning of the “one person, one vote” guarantee), the cases challenging the accommodation for religious organizations under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, and the challenge to the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

Daily Kos has a similar rundown with even more affected cases.

Right wing candidates and elected officials seemed to realize almost immediately that Scalia’s death would enable the Supreme Court’s four-member progressive bloc to stop the conservative bloc from reaching any more sweeping decisions in major cases planned and brought by them to increase Republicans’ political power and overturn progressive laws at the state and federal level.

“We’ve lost a giant on the conservative side,” lamented Lindsey Graham as MSNBC’s Ari Melber asked him for his reaction to Scalia’s passing.

As mentioned, we did not agree with Justice Scalia most of the time, and we won’t miss him as a jurist. His legacy, on balance, isn’t what we’d call positive for the country. Our deepest condolences go out to his family and friends, however, particularly his wife Maureen and their children, who have suddenly lost their father. This is a very sad day for them, and they have our sympathies.

Liveblogging the sixth 2016 Democratic presidential debate from the great Northwest

Good evening, and welcome to NPI’s live coverage of the sixth Democratic presidential debate of the 2016 cycle. I will be watching and sharing impressions of the debate as it progresses. The debate is being organized and broadcast by PBS affiliates like KCTS 9, and simulcast by CNN. If you don’t get PBS over the air, or you don’t have cable, you can livestream the debate online with YouTube.

PBS will post periodic updates as the debate progresses on NewsHour’s Facebook page and on its @NewsHour Twitter feed.

There are two candidates left seeking the Democratic nomination for President of the United States: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

This sixth overall debate will be the second one with just Clinton and Sanders on stage, going head to head. Tonight’s debate will be the only debate held between the New Hampshire Democratic primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses on February 20th. The next debate is scheduled for March 6th, in Flint, Michigan, following the South Carolina Democratic primary and Super Tuesday.

The moderators will be PBS’ Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff.

We will begin our live coverage at 6 PM, when the candidates take the stage.

UPDATE, 6 PM: Here we go! Our moderators have arrived.

UPDATE, 6:04 PM: Bernie Sanders is giving his opening statement first. He’s reiterating his campaign themes — blasting income inequality, money in politics, establishment politics, and establishment economics.

UPDATE, 6:08 PM: Hillary Clinton has now delivered her opening statement, stressing her commitment to building on the progress that President Obama has made (though she did not mention Obama by name).

UPDATE, 6:11 PM: We’re back from a brief break. First question goes to Bernie Sanders — and sadly, it’s rooted in right wing framing: How big you believe government should be? (Bad question, Judy. The big/small dichotomy is not what’s important. What progressives are after is government that is effective.)

UPDATE, 6:12 PM: Sanders responds by pointing out that we need to pool our resources to tackle our gaping infrastructure deficit and live up to our moral responsibility of providing healthcare for all.

UPDATE, 6:13 PM: Clinton jumps in and suggests that implementation of Sanders’ plan would make the federal government 40% bigger.

UPDATE, 6:15 PM, “In my view, healthcare is a right for all people,” Sanders says, defending the idea of Medicare For All.

UPDATE, 6:16 PM: “I’ve set forth very specific plans on how to get costs down,” Clinton says, arguing that it makes more sense to incrementally build on the Patient Protection Act than to try to move quickly towards Medicare For All.

UPDATE, 6:18 PM: Sanders responded by pointing out the United States is the only major developed country on Earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to its people as a right. Wanting the last word, Clinton declares that we’re not France, the United Kingdom, or Canada, and again assails Sanders’ plans as unrealistic.

UPDATE, 6:24 PM: The candidates are agreed on the principle of lowering the cost of college, but each claims the other’s plan is inferior to theirs.

We’ve heard much of this exchange before…

UPDATE, 6:29 PM: “I’m not asking people to support me because I’m a woman,” Clinton says, after listening to Sanders field another silly question about how he feels about his candidacy potentially preventing America from electing the first woman president in 2016.

UPDATE, 6:32 PM: Sanders just delivered one of his finest debate answers yet, slamming Republicans for hypocritically wanting the federal government to dictate women’s reproductive decisions while nonsensically pushing for 1790s-size, 1890s-size, or 1950s-sized federal government.

UPDATE, 6:33 PM: Finally, a decent, substantive question: How would you address the disproportionately high black male prison population?

UPDATE, 6:34 PM: Sanders and Clinton agree: we need to demilitarize our police and insist on criminal justice reforms (policing, sentencing) that will end prejudicial practices by law enforcement personnel. Systemic racism needs to be combated more broadly as well, as Hillary Clinton noted. “We have to talk about jobs, education, housing,” Clinton noted.

UPDATE, 6:38 PM: Sticking with the same theme, Judy Woodruff asks, “What would you do to improve race relations?”

UPDATE, 6:40 PM: Clinton praises President Obama for his work digging America out from the ditch President Bush left the country in, but notes we can’t rest. The advent of social media, she points out, has helped expose a lot of the discriminatory practices in our country that have continued, even in the wake of the civil rights victories of the 1950s, 1960s, and beyond.

UPDATE, 6:45 PM: Sanders draws the connection between disastrous trade and economic policies and underemployment, income inequality, and economic injustice.

UPDATE, 6:47 PM: Moving on to comprehensive immigration reform…

UPDATE, 6:48 PM: Sanders says new Americans would not need to fear deportation under a Sanders presidency. “I disagree with his recent deportation policies,” Sanders says of Obama, after praising Obama for his executive order on immigration, which is being litigated right now at the Supreme Court.

UPDATE, 6:49 PM: Clinton agrees… “I’m against the raids,” she says. “I was one of the original sponsors of the DREAM Act,” she adds.

UPDATE, 6:51 PM: After being criticized by Clinton, Sanders defended his 2007 immigration vote by pointing out that the legislation contained an awful, immoral guest worker program that was opposed by the AFL-CIO, Southern Poverty Law Center, and other progressive groups.

UPDATE, 6:56 PM: “If elected President, I will do everything I can to expand Social Security,” Sanders declares, answering a question from Facebook (“How will you ensure the basic needs of senior citizens are met?”)

UPDATE, 6:58 PM: Clinton agrees that Social Security should be expanded, but says she wants to focus on helping those who are most at risk first.

UPDATE, 6:59 PM: Sanders challenges Clinton on her commitment to expanding Social Security, noting that groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) have asked Clinton to commit to scrapping the cap. Clinton reiterates that she thinks she and Sanders are in “vigorous agreement” about expanding Social Security, but declines to endorse Sanders’ approach.

UPDATE, 7:03 PM: Next question… “What influence will your campaign contributors have on your administration?”

UPDATE, 7:06 PM: We’re having quite a vigorous debate about the influence of money in campaigns affecting public policy. Sanders is making the point that unfettered corporate electioneering has had a negative effect on our country, and that Wall Street doesn’t donate to super PACs just for the fun of it. Clinton notes that Barack Obama pushed for and signed Dodd-Frank into law even though he was the recipient of Wall Street’s largesse. Sanders retorted that while he supported for Dodd-Frank and got an amendment into the bill, it didn’t go far enough.

UPDATE, 7:10 PM: We’re heading to an intermission.

Clinton and Sanders at the sixth Democratic debate

Clinton and Sanders at the sixth Democratic debate

UPDATE, 7:16 PM: We’re back. And to our dismay, the first question is a lame follow-up from the bad first question that was asked at the beginning of the debate (Is there any aspect of government you’d like to reduce or get rid of?) Sanders and Clinton both gave short answers at first, though Sanders wisely opted to tack on to his by noting that our defense budget is bloated and has many wasteful programs.

UPDATE, 7:17 PM: Next question is about whether we are ready for the next attack against the United States. Clinton has the first opportunity to respond.

UPDATE, 7:23 PM: The back and forth is getting more lively now. Clinton is leveraging her experience in her answers, responding to Sanders’ criticism that she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq by saying, “I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS,” Meanwhile, Sanders continues to points out that past American meddling around the world has produced unintended consequences.

UPDATE, 7:29 PM: Wow. Sanders just unloaded, completely, on Henry Kissinger and attacked his record as Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State.

UPDATE, 7:34 PM: We’re still talking foreign policy, discussing what’s the best approach to Russia’s empire-building ambitions and intervention in the conflict in Syria. (Russia has been military assisting the Assad regime in fighting the Syrian rebels that nations in NATO and the West support.)

UPDATE, 7:40 PM: Next question is, “What more should the U.S. do to lead the effort to help refugees?”

UPDATE, 7:41 PM: Sanders is recounting his visit to a refugee camp in Turkey. He goes on to declare: “I very strongly disagree with those Republican candidates who say, ‘You know, we’ve gotta turn our backs on those women and children who are fleeing'” from the violence in Syria and other troubled places in the world.

UPDATE, 7:46 PM: Asked to name one American leader and one foreign leader that would inspire his decisionmaking, Sanders cites FDR and Winston Churchill.

UPDATE, 7:47 PM: Sanders and Clinton are going at it over Sanders’ support (or lack thereof) for President Barack Obama.

UPDATE, 7:50 PM: Sanders hit back at Clinton over her criticisms by noting he didn’t run against Barack Obama, then segued into his closing statement, in which he explained why he believes a political revolution is necessary to prevent our country from heading down a very dark road.

UPDATE, 7:51 PM: Clinton’s turn for a closing statement. She wasted no time in taking an apparent shot at Sanders, saying she’s not running as a single issue candidate. (Sanders would no doubt laugh at the criticism that he is a single-issue candidate.) “I’m going to keep talking about tearing down all of the barriers stopping America from living up to its potential,” she says.

UPDATE, 7:53 PM: And with that, we’re done. It was another feisty debate, particularly at the end. We wish there had been questions asked about education, transportation, and the climate crisis, instead of how big government should be.

  • RSS Recent entries from the Permanent Defense Media Center