We begin today's roundup with analysis by The Washington Post's Catherine Rampell on the increasing number of people identifying as liberals:
as “liberal” — socially liberal, to be specific. As a result, for the first time on record, self-proclaimed social liberals are no longer outnumbered by their conservative counterparts.
That’s according to a new Gallup poll that finds the shares of American adults considering themselves “socially liberal” and “socially conservative” each total 31 percent. (The remaining respondents either called their views “moderate” or had no opinion.) Gallup has been tracking these categories since 1999, and the latest numbers simultaneously signify the highest share ever recorded for liberals and the lowest recorded for conservatives.
What explains this shift? Are Americans’ views on social issues becoming more liberal, or is “liberal” just getting a bit of brand revival?
In short, it’s probably both.
Speaking of liberals,
Ryan Cooper at The Week urges the media to take Bernie Sanders seriously:
if anything Sanders is more credible than the likes of Paul and Cruz. He has risen markedly in the polls of late, where his support has about tripled since the end of last year. He's doing particularly well in New Hampshire, where a recent poll put him in second place at 18 percent support. As an opponent of the Iraq War and a longtime advocate for more progressive policy, he has a natural constituency in the liberal left, where he is genuinely admired.
Will he win? The odds are surely against him. Clinton's level of name recognition, money, and elite support — Sanders didn't even pick up an endorsement from the governor of his home state — makes it a very tough challenge. But it's conceivable that he could win. As Hendricks notes, dark horse challengers like Jimmy Carter have reached victory facing even longer odds.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Taegan Goddard says the GOP should run its debates like American Idol:
There's never been a primary debate — in either party — with more than 10 candidates. And it's even more disconcerting to Republicans because they made a strong effort to limit the number of debates so it didn't turn into a circus like it did four years ago... when there were a mere nine candidates. [...]
All of this worrying and rule-making is intended to prevent the GOP presidential debates from becoming a political version of a reality show. But when you think about it, what's wrong with that?
Imagine if the debates were like American Idol, with candidates "performing" their answers to questions before a panel of "judges" — and ultimately the votes of television viewers across the country. At the end of each round, the poorest performing candidates would be "voted off" and wouldn't move to the next round.
On the topic of the GOP field,
David Freedlander at The Daily Beast reminds us of the GOP's true base:
a group of young policy wonks known as the “Reformicons” were gaining traction in elite party circles, championing a message that the party should move away from—as The New York Times put it—“orgiastic tax-cutting, the slashing of government programs, the championing of Wall Street.”
Over dinner at a restaurant on the Upper East Side, Larry Kudlow, the CNBC host and former Reagan-administration economist, fretted over how to respond, along his wife, Judith, Club for Growth founder Stephen Moore, and Alexandra Preate, a PR maven who has been described as “The Peggy Siegal of Republican politics.”
For an answer, they looked back to a time when Western civilization was in danger of being obliterated, and a group of Cold War hawks formed the Committee on Present Danger to ring the alarm on the Soviet threat. They would call themselves “The Committee to Unleash American Prosperity” and would attempt to educate GOP presidential candidates on the benefits of supply-side economics and stiffen their backbones.
The Miami Herald, meanwhile, argues against sending in US troops to fight ISIS:
Instead of using the defeat as an excuse to recommit U.S. ground troops to the fight, as war hawks such as Sen. John McCain are urging, this should be a moment to find out how much Iraqis are willing to do for themselves. Ultimately, it’s their country and their fight.
Consider: If the United States is willing to step into the fray every time the Iraqi government is threatened, why should Iraq’s people make the sacrifices and political compromises necessary to defeat a persistent and bloodthirsty enemy? Critics of the Obama administration’s policy on Iraq who claim the United States “abandoned” Iraq are way off base. U.S. forces spent more than a decade fighting in that country — at a cost of some 36,000 dead and wounded, not to mention trillions of dollars — and worked hard to lay the groundwork for a prosperous future built on traditional Iraqi values and an amicable relationship between Sunnis and Shiites.
The departure of American troops was as orderly as such things can be, and the result of a painful process of negotiation with Iraq’s government. If Iraqis haven’t been able to get their act together, it’s hardly America’s fault. And it’s doubtful that the infusion of another U.S. infantry division would make a significant or permanent difference. Any administration that disregarded the pitfalls and added a small contingent of troops would soon find itself mired in mission creep and facing urgent calls to do even more.