Democrats and Republicans are caucusing today in Kansas and voting in the Louisiana primary. Republicans are also caucusing in Maine and Kentucky; Democrats will caucus in Maine tomorrow. Democrats caucused in Nebraska today, while Republicans will hold a primary there in May. This thread is for any comments about the presidential race. I will update throughout the evening.

Ted Cruz won the Kansas caucuses, which went to Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008. Speaking from Idaho about his latest victory, Cruz told supporters, “The scream you hear, the howl that comes from Washington DC, is utter terror at what We the People are doing together.”

Trump is still on track to win the Republican nomination, but a brokered GOP convention can’t be ruled out, especially if Cruz wins states dominated by social conservatives, John Kasich wins Ohio and possibly Michigan, and Marco Rubio wins the Florida primary. Ben Carson has ended his campaign, which could help alternatives to Trump win other states. Cruz just won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a sign of his continuing strength with hard-core activists.

Pat Rynard previewed the Democratic caucuses in Nebraska and in Kansas (where some voters will have to drive very long distances to participate). His account and others suggest that Bernie Sanders will win those states. However, Hillary Clinton is favored in Louisiana and has already built up a substantial pledged delegate lead. Unless Sanders can overtake Clinton in pledged delegates, the superdelegates are expected to go overwhelmingly for Clinton (Iowa is no exception).

UPDATE: Further updates are after the jump. It’s a disastrous night for Rubio: a distant third in Kansas, where most of the establishment was supporting him, and fourth place in Maine. He pursued a flawed strategy over the past couple of weeks, culminating in Thursday night’s debate in Detroit. Rubio went after Trump by getting down to Trump’s maturity level. Cruz had a much better debate, attacking Trump on policy and mocking him as childish. After some particularly un-presidential comments by Trump, Cruz scored his best points, asking the viewers at home whether this was the kind of debate they want to see play out over the summer.

Not only did Cruz dominate the field in Kansas, he won the Maine caucuses, a rare victory for a social conservative in New England and a rebuke to Governor Paul LePage, who endorsed Trump on February 26, less than a week after trying to mobilize GOP governors to stop Trump. So far, Trump leads the vote count in Kentucky and may carry Louisiana as well, but Cruz took a big step toward cementing his position as the viable alternative to Trump. He has called on Rubio to promise to drop out if he doesn’t win the Florida primary on March 15.

Shortly before starting work as the University of Iowa’s president, Bruce Harreld told the Iowa City Press-Citizen’s Jeff Charis-Carlson that he had no immediate plans for high-level staff changes.

“I’ve done this in different environments multiple times,” said Harreld, who was an executive at Boston Chicken and Kraft Foods before becoming senior vice president for marketing and strategy at IBM. “And I always believe that the institutional knowledge that the existing team has is enormously important.”

There will be changes, of course, Harreld said, but agendas for change will involve the people who know the university best.

“I see a lot of leaders do this wholesale changing of leadership, and I think they lose a lot of momentum in that process,” Harreld said. “I’m a huge believer in culture and context, and I’ve been teaching that and practicing it all my life.”

This week Harreld demonstrated too much commitment to the university’s existing team.

Iowans who approve of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley’s work greatly outnumber those who disapprove, according to the latest poll by Selzer & Co for the Des Moines Register and Mediacom. Selzer conducted the survey between February 21 and 24, when Grassley’s stance against filling the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy was a prominent news topic. Among the 804 Iowa respondents, 57 percent said they approved of the way Grassley is handling his job and 28 percent disapproved.

That approval is down 7 percentage points from a year ago, but it remains well within his normal range over the last several years, Register pollster J. Ann Selzer said. Over the past decade, Grassley has rated as high as 75 percent, in January 2009, and as low as 54 percent, in February 2010.

Public Policy Polling’s last several Iowa surveys have all measured Grassley’s approval at 50 percent or higher, well above his disapproval rating, and showed the senator leading any of his declared Democratic challengers by more than 20 points. PPP surveys in the field last week indicated that GOP senators up for re-election in Ohio and Pennsylvania could be hurt by the refusal even to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. However, those senators don’t have Grassley’s 36 years of constituent service and traveling the state every year to fall back on.

Whether Grassley’s general election opponent turns out to be Patty Judge or Rob Hogg, Democrats have a long way to go to make this race competitive.

Incidentally, the Selzer poll showed that about a year into Senator Joni Ernst’s tenure, 43 percent of respondents approve of her work, while 31 percent disapprove and 25 percent are not sure. PPP has found similar approval numbers for Ernst in recent months, with disapproval numbers also in the low 40s.

UPDATE: Public Policy Polling released a new Iowa poll on March 4. Grassley’s approval and disapproval numbers were 47 percent and 44 percent, “down considerably from what we usually find for him as he loses crossover support from Democrats because of his intransigence on the Supreme Court issue.” Some 56 percent of all Iowa respondents and 58 percent of independents in the sample “want the Supreme Court vacancy to be filled this year.” In addition, by a 66 percent to 26 percent margin, Iowa respondents “say that the Senate should at least wait and see who’s put forward before deciding whether to confirm or deny that person.” Among independents in the sample, just 24 percent say they would be more likely to vote for Grassley if he refuses to confirm the president’s Supreme Court nominee, 48 percent say they would be less likely to vote for him, and 28 percent say it would make no difference.

Former Lieutenant Governor and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge will seek the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, Jason Noble reported today for the Des Moines Register, citing multiple unnamed sources. She will make her candidacy official tomorrow. Two weeks should be plenty of time for her supporters to collect the 2,104 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

Three Democrats are already competing for the chance to run against six-term incumbent Senator Chuck Grassley, but once Judge enters the race, the main contest will be between her and State Senator Rob Hogg. Intending no disrespect to Tom Fiegen or Bob Krause, their performance in the 2010 IA-Sen primary suggests they will not be major factors on June 7.

I see three main factors influencing Iowa Democrats as they decide between Judge and Hogg.

Since Terry Branstad returned to the governor’s office, the overwhelming majority of Iowa Senate votes on contentious political issues have fallen along strict party lines: 26 Democrats one way and 24 Republicans the opposite. However, the Branstad administration’s rush to privatize Medicaid has created space for bipartisanship, as a growing number of Republicans acknowledge the dangers of shifting to managed care for a program through which one in six Iowans access health services.

Last month, three GOP senators joined their Democratic colleagues to vote for a bill that would have halted Iowa’s Medicaid privatization. That legislation is going nowhere in the Republican-controlled state House, and federal officials recently approved waivers to allow the Iowa Department of Human Services to implement the managed care policy as of April 1.

Yesterday a quarter of the GOP state senators voted with all 26 Democrats for a Medicaid oversight bill that had cleared the Senate Human Resources Committee unanimously. In her remarks to open floor debate on Senate File 2213, Human Resources Committee Chair Amanda Ragan said the bill was designed “to safeguard the interests of Medicaid members, encourage the participation of Medicaid providers, and protect Iowa taxpayers.” She told colleagues, “we must require DHS and the managed care companies to protect consumers, preserve provider networks, address the unique needs of children and assure accountability.”

I enclose below highlights from the debate on SF 2213, the roll call on final passage, and Ragan’s full remarks, along with a Democratic staff analysis summarizing the bill’s key points.

The Iowa House Government Oversight Committee wasted more time today arguing over efforts by some Republicans to investigate last year’s Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth. For background on the controversy surrounding the annual event organized by the non-profit Iowa Safe Schools, see reporting by Iowa statehouse correspondents William Petroski and James Q. Lynch, as well as Mark Joseph Stern’s article for Slate. Committee Chair Bobby Kaufmann could be directing his oversight energy toward the governor’s hasty privatization of the Medicaid program, which will affect health care for one in six Iowans. But no, Kaufmann asserts “it would be a dereliction of my duty if we did not have an investigation” of the Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth, attended by roughly a thousand people last year. (I am a longtime supporter of the conference but play no role in planning it.)

Iowa Safe Schools Executive Director Nate Monson has declined invitations from Kaufmann’s committee to testify about the conference. Today Democratic State Representative Mary Wolfe, a defense attorney by trade, and Republican State Representative Dawn Pettengill, occasionally prone to paranoid fears, disagreed over whether Monson should be compelled to appear. I’ve enclosed below excerpts from their remarks at the latest committee meeting.

House Republican Clel Baudler interrupted the exchange to declare it a “catfight,” “eliciting laughter from some committee members, including Pettengill,” by Lynch’s account.

It’s disappointing but not surprising that an Iowa lawmaker would belittle two of his female colleagues by reducing their substantive disagreement to a “catfight.”

Equally disappointing and much more surprising: O.Kay Henderson validated Baudler’s assessment by elevating his description to the headline and lede of her story for Radio Iowa. Putting the word in quotation marks signified that the label came from someone other than the journalist. Nevertheless, a story called “Committee ‘catfight’ over panel’s subpoena power,” with the opening sentence “One committee member today used the word ‘catfight’ to describe this debate,” gave Baudler’s interjection more importance than it warranted. Henderson’s reports reach thousands of Iowans, not only online but also through more than 50 affiliate radio stations.

In contrast, Lynch played it straight with his title (“Iowa lawmakers clash on scope of oversight in LGBT case”) and lede (“Members of an Iowa House committee that reviews the performance of state agencies clashed Wednesday over the scope of its authority to compel testimony from members of the public”). He mentioned Baudler’s comment near the end of the story, where the colorful detail belonged.

I don’t expect Baudler to provide enlightened commentary on legislative happenings. I do expect one of Iowa’s most accomplished and respected female journalists not to seize on a sexist cheap shot as clickbait.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been conducting background interviews” on Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jane Kelly, Julie Hirschfeld Davis reported today for the New York Times. Assuming that news is accurate, Judge Kelly is on President Barack Obama’s list of possible nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Within hours of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month, many court-watchers speculated that Kelly could be named to replace him. After spending most of her career as a federal public defender, she won unanimous confirmation to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 with strong support from Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley.

As Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Grassley has the power to schedule hearings and votes on any judicial nominee. He has promised not to give Obama’s choice any hearing in the Senate. Denying a Supreme Court nominee any consideration for a full year is without precedent in U.S. history. Yet Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stuck to that stance yesterday during a White House meeting with the president and Vice President Joe Biden. I enclose below Grassley’s official comment on that meeting, a guest column the senator’s office submitted to Iowa media outlets late last week, and Grassley’s Senate floor speech from April 2013, urging colleagues to confirm Kelly.

Already, Democrats are bombarding Grassley and other GOP senators with calls to “do your job.” Nominating Kelly for the Supreme Court vacancy would put Grassley in a particularly awkward position, forcing him to explain over and over why he refuses to give a well-regarded, highly-qualified Iowa judge even the courtesy of a Senate hearing, let alone a floor vote.

UPDATE: According to appellate attorney Steve Klepper, Kelly set the record for fastest Senate approval of an Obama appeals court nominee: 83 days from nomination to confirmation.

SECOND UPDATE: The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported, “Grassley said Wednesday [March 2] that news the White House had ordered checks on Judge Jane Kelly of Cedar Rapids as a possible Supreme Court nominee wouldn’t neutralize his stance against any choice of President Barack Obama.” The same article quoted from a statement the senator released last month, noting that “It’s not an issue of any particular candidate. […] If a Democrat wins the White House, I’m sure Jane Kelly would be on any Democrat’s short list of candidates.”

Polls have closed in a few of the Super Tuesday primary states, so here’s a thread for any comments about the Democratic or Republican presidential contests. I will update this post periodically with results. So far Virginia and Georgia have been called for Hillary Clinton, while Vermont was called for Bernie Sanders. In his victory speech, Sanders vowed to take his fight to every one of the 35 states that have not yet voted.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump is the early winner in Georgia and is expected to win most of today’s primaries and caucuses. However, the size of his delegate lead will depend greatly on how many other candidates exceed the threshold for winning delegates in various states. Guest author fladem’s post on Republican delegate scenarios is essential reading, in case you missed it yesterday.

UPDATE: A disappointing night for the “Stop Trump” forces. (By the way, who was it who said, “whenever you hear about a ‘Stop X’ campaign, bet on X?”) Ted Cruz won Texas and Oklahoma, Marco Rubio won Minnesota, and Trump looks likely to sweep the rest of the states. John Kasich and Rubio split enough moderate votes to give Trump the win in Vermont and perhaps also in Massachusetts. Rubio may not hit the 20 percent threshold needed to win any delegates in some of the southern states. Trying to put a good spin on the results, Rubio told CNN that “this was supposed to be Ted Cruz’s big night” and depicted himself as the only person who can stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination. The look on his face when Jake Tapper asked him whether he was in denial was priceless.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie didn’t look very happy at Trump’s victory party. The times being what they are, Christie’s face spawned immediate memes and caption contests. So far this is my favorite: “That moment when you realize you misunderstood literally every Bruce Springsteen song.”

Clinton had a very big night. Sanders is on track to win just four states: Vermont, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Massachusetts was probably a must-win for him. According to Nate Silver, “Clinton is running ahead of her benchmarks by an average of 16 percentage points tonight, which is equivalent to her holding a 16-point lead over Sanders in national polls.”

Twitter user Xenocrypt (who long ago posted a fascinating piece here) commented tonight, “A socialist won in Oklahoma! Just like old times. Really, really old times.” Turns out Oklahoma had one of our country’s strongest socialist parties a hundred years ago.

Clinton won the four states awarding the most delegates by large margins. Nate Cohn commented, “The biggest lesson of the Sanders campaign is that there is no progressive/left majority in the Democratic Party without black voters.” Farai Chideya speculated, “Pragmatism about black political interests and how the game is played is likely the primary factor [in Clinton’s overwhelming margin among African-Americans], since Sanders has also spoken to issues of core interest to black voters.”

WEDNESDAY MORNING UPDATE: In the UK, they would call this “a right royal mess” for Republicans. By splitting the establishment vote, Kasich and Rubio allowed Trump to win Vermont and Virginia by narrow margins. Trump also barely won Arkansas. Cruz picked up Alaska, despite Sarah Palin’s Trump endorsement. Rubio missed the cutoff for at-large delegates in Texas and Alabama. Cruz outperformed his recent polling numbers to win Texas by a wide margin. One unofficial delegate count puts Trump at 338, with 233 delegates for Cruz, 112 for Rubio, 27 for Kasich and 8 for Carson; full spreadsheet here.

According to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, Clinton easily surpassed the number of delegates she needed to put her on track to win the Democratic nomination.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who ran for president as a Libertarian in 2012 and is doing so again this year, said in a statement I’ve enclosed below that he “may have won Super Tuesday,” because more voters will be looking for a third-party alternative to Clinton or Trump.

In an effort to halt Donald Trump’s momentum and also to preserve some self-respect, a growing number of Republicans are vowing never to vote for Trump, even if he becomes the GOP presidential nominee. As Megan McArdle reported for Bloomberg, the #NeverTrump faction represents “all segments of the party — urban professionals, yes, but also stalwart evangelicals, neoconservatives, libertarians, Tea Partiers, the whole patchwork of ideological groups of which the Republican coalition is made.”

Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman said she would consider voting for Hillary Clinton over Trump. At a funeral in Des Moines this past weekend, the daughter of the deceased (like Whitman a moderate Republican) struck a chord with some of the mourners when she joked during her eulogy that she was a little envious her mother would not have to vote in the presidential election now.

At the other end of the GOP ideological spectrum, staunch conservative U.S. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska became the first member of Congress to take the #NeverTrump pledge, laying out his reasoning in a long Facebook post.

So far, the most prominent Iowa Republican to join the #NeverTrump camp is right-wing talk radio host Steve Deace, who explained his stance in a column for the Conservative Review website. Deace worked hard to persuade fellow Iowans to caucus for Ted Cruz. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio endorser and former Waukee City Council member Isaiah McGee described himself to me as a “founding member” of #NeverTrump.

Early signs suggest that few, if any, elected GOP officials in Iowa will join the club.

March 2 update: Kroeger ended his Congressional campaign. Added his comments on switching to the state legislative race at the end of this post.

One of the three Democratic candidates in Iowa’s first Congressional district may file instead as a candidate in Iowa House district 60, covering parts of Waterloo and Cedar Falls. I sought comment from Gary Kroeger this morning after Pat Rynard mentioned “talk in some Democratic circles” that Kroeger may switch to the statehouse race. Kroeger replied, “I am considering whatever is best for the Democratic Party in terms of my candidacy. State races are also imperative.”

Kroeger launched his Congressional campaign last April, positioning himself for the primary as “an unapologetic progressive, lifelong progressive and a proud lifelong Democrat.” Since Ravi Patel exited that race and Pat Murphy launched his second Congressional campaign last summer, Murphy has claimed the labels of “progressive” and “lifelong Democrat.” A longtime Iowa legislator and the 2014 nominee in IA-01, Murphy is better known around the district than Kroeger, who has trailed far behind Murphy and Monica Vernon in the few opinion polls released so far. Raising enough money to run a district-wide campaign has also proved challenging for Kroeger. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has endorsed Vernon, while the Blue America PAC is supporting Murphy.

That said, the kind of money Kroeger has raised for his IA-01 campaign would go very far in a state legislative race. His local name recognition would make him a strong challenger to three-term State Representative Walt Rogers.

Rogers defeated Democratic incumbent Doris Kelley in the previous version of this swing district in 2010. He held the seat in 2012 by more than 600 votes, even as residents of House district 60 preferred President Barack Obama to Mitt Romney by 50.15 percent to 48.91 percent.

A rising star in the Iowa House GOP caucus, Rogers launched his own Congressional campaign in IA-01 in 2013 but abandoned that race a few months later to seek a third term in the state legislature. He easily defeated Democratic challenger Karyn Finn amid the 2014 Republican wave. Joni Ernst outpolled Bruce Braley among House district 60 voters by nearly a 10-point margin, even though Braley himself is from Black Hawk County.

The latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office show that House district 60 contains 5,887 active registered Democrats, 7,007 Republicans, and 7,950 no-party voters. Those numbers do not include people who changed their party registration on February 1 in order to participate in the Iowa caucuses. A presidential year electorate creates a better opportunity for a Democratic challenger here.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. A map of House district 60 is after the jump. UPDATE: The Secretary of State’s Office just posted updated voter registration totals, showing 6,164 active registered Democrats, 7,253 Republicans, and 7,208 no-party voters for this House district.

As the Iowa Democratic Party considers reforms to the caucus system, here’s a case for Democrats to “reset our priorities” and get back to basics to make the event about “our caucus attendees first, the nation second.” -promoted by desmoinesdem

Let’s take off the sunglasses; close the makeup trailer; and put the script away. What would the Iowa Democratic Caucuses look like if there were no camera lights, reporters, or news media satellite dishes affiliated with the quadrennial event? The Iowa Democratic Caucuses might be boring, but they would be functional, effective, and ours.

Like many star struck Hollywood wannabe who suddenly reaches fame, Iowa’s Democratic Caucuses forgot who brought it to the dance. Over the past few decades, Iowans have given the Coastal Media some discretion as to how the caucuses function in return for cheap national publicity. Is it worth it?

A counter-intuitive take, grounded in a close look at GOP delegate allocation rules. -promoted by desmoinesdem

To date, Donald Trump has appeared to be an unstoppable train. He has a significant lead in delegates, and leads in virtually all of the polling on Super Tuesday. There would appear to be little drama.

And yet in fact there is. The reason for this is to be found in the delegate selection rules. In state after state (Texas is the notable exception) the polling is reasonably stable: Trump between 30 and 40, and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio hovering around 20%. When you actually project these polling numbers into delegates however, two things became very apparent:

1. Many states award delegates only to candidates who win 15 or 20%. In state after state both Rubio and Cruz’s polling shows them within a few points of these numbers. As a result a few percentage points can have an enormous effect on the results.

2. With each poll that is released, it is becoming less and less likely that Trump will get a majority of delegates on Super-Tuesday. In fact, while he will win a plurality of delegates on Super Tuesday, it will be very far from decisive. My current projection shows Trump getting 274 delegates on Super Tuesday, about 50 less than the other candidates combined.

As Donald Trump appears increasingly likely to win the Republican nomination, more elected officials are supporting him. This past week, two U.S. House representatives became the first current members of Congress to back Trump. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Maine Governor Paul LePage endorsed Trump on Friday. The LePage about-face was hilarious, coming less than a week after he called on GOP governors “to draft an open letter ‘to the people,’ disavowing Mr. Trump and his divisive brand of politics.” On Sunday, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama went public supporting Trump–a embarrassing turn of events for Senator Ted Cruz, who has repeatedly cited Sessions as cover for his stance on immigration reform.

Before the Iowa caucuses, only one GOP elected official in our state publicly supported Trump: State Senator Brad Zaun. That endorsement didn’t reflect any coherent ideology, since Zaun had backed Mitt Romney before the 2008 caucuses, Michele Bachmann before the 2012 caucuses, and was a co-chair for Scott Walker’s campaign last year, saying “we needed someone with some executive experience.” The pivot to Trump had a certain logic, though, as all the presidential candidates Zaun endorsed as a state lawmaker were leading Iowa Republican polls at the time he jumped on the bandwagon.

High-profile endorsements may drive a news cycle or two, but whether they influence a significant number of voters is another question. Join me in taking a close look at how Trump did in Zaun’s Iowa Senate district, which covers much of northwest Polk County.

Two Republicans are actively campaigning in Iowa House district 77, a Democratic-leaning seat where State Representative Sally Stutsman recently announced plans to retire this year. Both Royce Phillips and Paula Dreeszen filed documents forming House campaign committees earlier this month.

Dreeszen’s campaign Facebook page calls for efficient government, asserting that “Our state wastes too much money.”

Phillips is pastor of the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Coralville and the former mayor of Tiffin, the second-largest city in House district 77. He sought the Republican nomination in Iowa Senate district 39 in 2014, finishing third in the three-way primary. His campaign is on Facebook and Twitter, and his pitch is “a consistent conservative with a record of results.”

I enclose below excerpts from the Dreeszen and Phillips campaign announcements, as well as a map of House district 77.

The likely Democratic nominee is Amy Nielsen, mayor of North Liberty. That rapidly-growing city is the largest in the district. Click here for background on Nielsen. She’s on Twitter and Facebook and has a campaign website dating from her run for mayor.

I have not heard of any other prospective Democratic or Republican candidates for the open seat, though that may change before the March 18 filing deadline. Qualifying for the primary ballot is relatively easy, as candidates for the Iowa House need only 50 valid signatures from residents of the district on their nominating papers.

The Democratic nominee will be favored to succeed Stutsman, who easily defeated a GOP opponent in 2012. According to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, House district 77 contains 7,043 active registered Democrats, 5,213 Republicans, and 7,727 no-party voters. Those numbers do not include people who changed their party registration on February 1 to participate in the Iowa caucuses.

President Barack Obama won more than 58 percent of the vote among House district 77 residents in 2012. Bruce Braley outpolled Joni Ernst by 9 points here in the 2014 U.S. Senate race.

Polls just closed in South Carolina, where Hillary Clinton is favored to defeat Bernie Sanders easily, possibly by as large a margin as Sanders’ big win in New Hampshire. Any comments about the Democratic race for the presidency are welcome in this thread. Here are a few links to get the conversation started.

African-American voters are critically important for Clinton and will make a large share of the electorate not only in South Carolina but also in at least six of the states that vote on “Super Tuesday” (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia). This chart shows data from the 2008 primaries on the non-white percentages of electorates in the states that will vote on March 1.

Toni Monkovic argued recently, “We’re living in an era when blacks have essentially played kingmaker in the most important elections in the nation.” Sanders did extremely well among white working-class voters in the first three states, but “he does not really have a path to victory unless he can significantly narrow or even erase Mrs. Clinton’s edge among nonwhite voters,” Nate Cohn argued earlier this month. The prevalence of moderate Democratic voters in several of the Super Tuesday states should also work to Clinton’s advantage.

Tim Murphy wrote an interesting piece for Mother Jones on “Clinton’s Most Valuable Allies in South Carolina: the Moms of Black Lives Matter.”

Terrell Jermaine Staff profiled Marcus Ferrell in Fusion. Ferrell’s job with the Sanders campaign is “convincing black folks to ‘feel the Bern.’”

David Sirota took a close look at what economists say about whether Sanders’ plans on single-payer health care and free education at public universities “add up.”

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com laid out which states Sanders needs to win on Super Tuesday and beyond to win the Democratic nomination.

Excerpts from all of those articles are after the jump.

For comic relief, I recommend Steve Deace’s latest column for the Conservative Review on how 2016 is shaping up to be “the devil’s favorite presidential election.” He takes some ridiculous shots at Clinton and Sanders but the real venom comes out when he writes about Donald Trump. Deace is furious the strong anti-establishment sentiment in the Republican electorate is working mostly in Trump’s favor, rather than pushing Ted Cruz ahead.

UPDATE: Clinton is on track to outperform her lead in South Carolina polling. She gave her victory speech less than an hour after polls closed, and sounded like she was running against Donald Trump, not Sanders. I’ve added excerpts from her speech below. She recognized by name all of the “Black Lives Matter” moms, as well as their children who were killed.

SECOND UPDATE: Wow. A crushing victory for Clinton by nearly a 3 to 1 margin. I don’t remember seeing anyone predict she would even win 2 to 1. Harry Enten speculates that South Carolina “may be the beginning of the end for Sanders.” Added excerpts at the end of this post.

Having spent most of the last month catching up on other political stories, I realized today that I never tabulated the results from Bleeding Heartland’s 2016 Iowa caucus prediction contest.

Follow me after the jump to find out who has bragging rights, at least until the June primary prediction contest. Spoiler alert: it ain’t me.

Many thanks to jpascoe for the first-person account of a February 23 meeting that the University of Iowa neither live-streamed nor recorded, for reasons unknown. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Well that was ugly and unsettling. J. Bruce Harreld’s “town hall meeting” dramatized what happens when you carry out a sham presidential search, install a puppet president, promise an open forum, replace it with a “town hall meeting,” and release a fusillade of PowerPoint slides documenting the UI’s skid down the rankings. Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that J. Bruce Harreld is a leadership expert. As I looked around the auditorium full of University of Iowans cleft in two by the sordid events of the last six months, some of them happy to move on, some of them hell-bent on unseating Harreld, none of them looked happy to be going where Harreld led. I long ago pitched my tent with the resisters, but I couldn’t help feeling sorry for all of us.

Great commentary; this line of attack is also one of my pet peeves. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Content warning: tone policing, poxes on both houses, general curmudgeonliness.

The 2016 Democratic primary reflects an internal conflict that I suspect is fairly common for aging liberals like myself. My idealistic heart thrills to hear genuinely liberal ideas debated seriously by a party that has often seemed leftist only by contrast to the headlong rightward scramble happening in the GOP. My pragmatic (and oft disappointed) brain is painfully aware that Congress will set itself on fire before it will cooperate with any president who isn’t the love child of Ronald Reagan and Genghis Khan. I’m happy that we’re having a vigorous primary contest – I caucused for O’Malley in a sadly futile attempt to keep the field as wide as possible – but I’m terrified by the notion that enough liberal voters from either camp could defect after a primary loss that they’ll end up throwing the general election to the Trump/Voldemort ticket.

While I love the spirited policy debate, I can’t help but cringe watching the primary campaigns and their supporters lobbing other election propaganda at each other. It’s obvious that the Republicans don’t need our help inventing creative ways to slander us and our ideals, but it does feel a little like we’re doing their job for them when we call each other names and question the character of our primary candidates. I’ve reluctantly resigned myself to ignore most of the character assassination (at least until we get past the primary and can get back to being appalled by conservatives full time), but there’s one soundbite accusation that I just can’t choke down no matter how much of my tongue I try to swallow: the accusation of “flip-flopping” on core liberal values.

The Des Moines Register’s Jason Noble snagged a surprising scoop yesterday: former Lieutenant Governor and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge is considering running for the U.S. Senate this year. Referring to Grassley’s approach to the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, Judge told Noble,

“Iowans have always been straight shooters, and up until the recent time I would have said the same thing about Chuck,” Judge said. […]

“I don’t like this double-speak,” Judge said. “I don’t like this deliberate obstruction of the process. I think Chuck Grassley owes us better. He’s been with us a long time. Maybe he’s been with us too long.”

To qualify for the Democratic primary ballot, Judge would need to submit nominating papers with the Secretary of State’s Office by March 18, three weeks from today. That doesn’t leave much time to collect at least 2,104 signatures, including minimum amounts in at least ten Iowa counties. But Judge could pull together a campaign quickly, having won three statewide elections–for secretary of agriculture in 1998 and 2002 and on the ticket with Chet Culver in 2006.

Three other Democrats are seeking the nomination to run against Grassley: State Senator Rob Hogg, former State Senator Tom Fiegen, and former State Representative Bob Krause. Former State Representative Ray Zirkelbach launched a U.S. Senate campaign in November but ended his campaign last month, Zirkelbach confirmed by phone this morning.

Dozens of Democratic state lawmakers endorsed Hogg in January. I enclose the full list below. Any comments about the Senate race are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Rebecca Tuetken notes, “Patty Judge does meet one apparent Iowa requirement: she told @SenatorHarkin ’08 steak fry that she can castrate a calf.” Truly a classic moment for Judge, when Joni Ernst was still the little-known Montgomery County auditor.

The Iowa House approved House File 2281 on February 23 by 62 votes to 36. All 57 Republicans voted yes, joined by Democratic State Representatives David Dawson, Rick Olson, Jim Lykam, Mary Wolfe, and Patti Ruff. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Yesterday, the WaPo posted an op-ed opposing a bill in the Iowa legislature that makes it legal for kids under 18 to use a handgun under direct parent supervision. The bill is being lambased as a “toddler militia” bill that would let 1 and 2 and 3 year olds use guns.

I’m a parent very much concerned about gun violence in the US. One of my top reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton is her outstanding record on common sense gun control. However, I don’t oppose this bill, and in fact, I think it offers an opportunity for folks on both sides of the gun issue to come together.