Donald Trump came in first in all five races in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island in Tuesday's primaries. Nicole Wallace and Eugene Robinson join Rachel Maddow and Brian Williams to discuss. watch
* The wrong call in North Carolina: "A federal judge on Monday upheld sweeping Republican-backed changes to election rules, including a voter identification provision, that civil rights groups say unfairly targeted African-Americans and other minorities."
* Though the ruling will be appealed, it's causing widespread alarm: "Voting rights groups say Monday's ruling by a federal judge upholding North Carolina's sweeping and restrictive voting law could cause chaos this fall if left in place."
* Something to keep an eye on: "The White House was placed on lockdown Tuesday after a man jumped a fence at a building west of the grounds, officials said. The lockdown began at around 4 p.m. and was lifted by around 4:30 p.m. The Secret Service said the White House was placed under a state of lockdown called a 'condition yellow.'"
* A 6-2 ruling: "Public employees can sue, claiming their civil rights were violated, as long as their employers thought a constitutional right was in play, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The decision was a victory for a New Jersey man, Jeffrey Heffernan, who was a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey, when the mayor was running for re-election."
* ISIS: "The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria has dropped from roughly 2,000 a month down to 200 within the past year, according to the Pentagon, which says the waning numbers are further proof of the Islamic State's declining stature. The declining number of fighters is a direct result of strikes that have targeted the terror group's infrastructure, Air Force Maj. Gen. Peter E. Gersten, the deputy commander for operations and intelligence for the U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State, said Tuesday."
* Europe: "Belgium famously sealed a dubious notoriety five years ago when it spent 589 days without an elected government. While Spain is not quite Belgium yet, it is getting there. Spain has started its fifth month without a government, but it is very likely to spend six months or more in political limbo, many analysts now predict, as the Spaniards give the Flemings and Walloons a run for their money in the political discord category."
Early on in last night's forum in Philadelphia, Rachel presented Hillary Clinton with the lay of the land in the Democratic presidential race, specifically as it relates to elusive party unity. Bernie Sanders, Rachel noted, "seems to be saying now that even if you beat him in the primary, it's not necessarily a given that he will implore all of his supporters to go out and work for you. He says that he thinks that they'll support you if basically you adopt some of his platform on the issues that are most important to him."
Asked if the senator's approach makes sense or if it's a bridge too far, Clinton noted her advantages -- more pledged delegates, more raw popular votes, etc. -- before pointing to what she sees as the ideal model.
"Let's look at what happened in 2008, because that's the closest example. Then-Senator Obama and I ran a really hard race. It was so much closer than the race right now between me and Senator Sanders. We had pretty much the same amount of popular votes. By some measures I had slightly more popular votes, he had slightly more pledged delegates.
"We got to the end in June and I did not put down conditions. I didn't say, 'You know what, if Senator Obama does x, y and z, maybe I'll support him.' I said, 'I am supporting Senator Obama, because no matter what our differences might be, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and the Republicans.' That's what I did.
"At that time 40 percent of my supporters said they would not support him. So from the time I withdrew, until the time I nominated him -- I nominated him at the [Democratic National Convention] in Denver -- I spent an enormous amount of time convincing my supporters to support him. And I'm happy to say the vast majority did. That is what I think one does. That is certainly what I did and I hope that we will see the same this year."
Clinton's version of events has the benefit of being true. By some measures, she fought longer than was absolutely necessary in 2008, and urged superdelegates to consider putting her over the top even after she came up short on pledged delegates, but after exhausting her alternatives, Clinton really did go all out for her Democratic rival.
For nearly a year, Donald Trump has been pitching a vague slogan: Make America Great Again. Even if we put aside the questions about how Trump intends to do that -- and how, exactly, the Republican candidate defines "great" -- it's a phrase that inevitably leads a question about when America was great, if it's not great now.
Margot Sanger-Katz explained in the New York Times today that Trump's followers don't necessarily agree on an answer, but they have a few ideas.
The slogan evokes a time when America was stronger and more prosperous. But Mr. Trump doesn't specify whether he's expressing nostalgia for the 1950s -- or 10 years ago. That vagueness is reflected by his voters, according to the results of a new survey, conducted online by the digital media and polling company Morning Consult.
When asked to select America's greatest year, Trump supporters offered a wide range of answers, with no distinct pattern. The most popular choice was the year 2000. But 1955, 1960, 1970 and 1985 were also popular. More than 2 percent of Trump's supporters picked 2015, when Mr. Trump's campaign began.
The same Times article flagged a Pew Research Center report from last month in which 75% of Trump supporters said life was better 50 years ago. Most Republicans also endorsed the idea, but it was Trump backers who were the most enthusiastic about it.
I don't imagine many will find this surprising, but it's nevertheless a notable validation of a broader thesis. Much of Trump's core base includes older, white men, who've seen generational changes with which they're generally uncomfortable. Over the last half-century, the United States has grown more diverse; women have made great strides towards overdue equality; and the current role of African Americans and LGBT Americans in society would have been difficult for much of the public to imagine 50 years ago.
It's hardly shocking that Trump, pushing a nativist nationalism, has supporters who'd prefer to roll back the clock.
Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* According to the Weekly Standard, a prominent conservative magazine, Ted Cruz's campaign is vetting Carly Fiorina as a potential running mate.
* To narrow the delegate gap, Bernie Sanders will have to win each of the remaining primaries and caucuses by double digits, including today's five contests. That's not impossible, but the odds are against it.
* Donald Trump's campaign operation continues to add new and experienced personnel, as evidenced yesterday by Trump hiring Ken McKay to help with his delegate-wrangling operation. McKay was Chris Christie's campaign manager.
* In a bit of a surprise, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R) announced yesterday he won't take on Sen. Jerry Moran (R) in a Kansas primary this year.
* Arizona is generally considered a "red" state in presidential politics, but the latest Rocky Mountain poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Trump in a hypothetical match-up, 42% to 35%.
* Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer announced yesterday that he's launching "a $25 million campaign to drive the youth vote in November's presidential and congressional elections." The initiative will be organized through his existing organization, NextGen Climate.
When a writer has a thought piece published by a major news outlet, he or she hopes the piece will be noticed. Indeed, practically every writer hopes his or her work will be read, considered, and talked about by as large an audience as possible.
To this extent, Jim VandeHei, a co-founder and former CEO of Politico, has succeeded beautifully with a new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about his desire for a third-party presidential candidate. His provocative thesis has, as intended, become the subject of widespread conversation, and if the point was to get people talking, it's worked.
There is a difference, however, between receptive chatter and hostile chatter, and VandeHei's piece is generating the latter for a reason.
I have spent the past two decades in the Washington, D.C., bubble -- the heart of Establishment America -- covering politics and building a company, Politico, focused solely on politics. But I've also spent a lot of time in my hometown of Oshkosh, Wis., and my adopted hometown of Lincoln, Maine, two blue-collar towns in the heart of Normal America.
Note, right off the bat, VandeHei seems to consider "Normal America" small, rural towns that are overwhelmingly white. Given that most Americans live in cities, it's unclear why we should perceive urban areas any less "normal."
Here are my two big takeaways: Normal America is right that Establishment America has grown fat, lazy, conventional and deserving of radical disruption. And the best, perhaps only way to disrupt the establishment is by stealing a lot of Donald Trump's and Bernie Sanders's tricks and electing a third-party candidate.
When someone uses "disrupt" and "disruption" twice in a paragraph during a "Shark Tank" pitch or at a TED talk, it's annoying. When someone does it in an op-ed, it's a reminder to start pacing your eye-rolling, because what follows is likely to be exasperating.
Mr. Trump's vulgar approach to politics is a terrific middle finger to the establishment but a terrible political and governing paradigm. Same goes for Sanders-style socialism. But if someone turned the critique, passion and disdain shared by the two movements into a new one, they could change the system in meaningful ways. Only an outside force can knock Washington out of its governing rut -- and the presidency is the only place with the power to do it.
First, assuming that meaningful change has to start at the White House before it trickles down is wrong. Second, there is a "governing rut" at the federal level, but it's not because of a lack of outsiders; it's because a radicalized congressional Republican majority with no real governing agenda and no tolerance for working cooperatively towards common goals or compromise has taken root on Capitol Hill.
Given the prevailing political winds, Republicans are feeling a little pessimistic about the 2016 election cycle right now, but the party is not without opportunities. Many in the GOP believe Sen. Michael Bennet (D) is vulnerable in Colorado -- one of the country's most unpredictable battleground states -- and with the right candidate, this could be one of the few Democratic seats in play this year.
Finding the right candidate, however, has proven to be tricky. Initially, Colorado Republicans tried to recruit Rep. Mike Coffman (R) to run, but he declined. When they turned to Rep. Scott Tipton (R), he bowed out, too. So did state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) and Rep. Ken Buck (R).
Left without a top tier contender, quite a few second-tier Republicans jumped into the race, and soon the state GOP, which had too few candidates, suddenly had too many: 13 Republicans were competing for the Senate nomination.
The field winnowed over time, and a favorite emerged: former state Rep. Jon Keyser (R), an Air Force Reserve major, was the top choice of party insiders. But as the Denver Postreported overnight, he's run into some trouble, too.
State officials said Monday that U.S. Senate candidate Jon Keyser failed to collect enough signatures to earn a place on the June 28 primary ballot -- a stunning blow that threatens to sink a campaign once hyped as the best in the Republican field.
Under state rules, Senate candidates who choose to petition their way onto the ballot must gather signatures from 1,500 or more voters in each of Colorado's seven congressional districts -- at least 10,500 in all.
Keyser fell short by 86 signatures in Colorado's 3rd District, according to the Colorado secretary of state's office, which reviewed his petition.
Part of the issue here is that Colorado, unlike many other states, does not allow voters to sign more than one ballot-access petition. In other words, if I sign a petition to get Candidate A on the ballot, and then I do the same for Candidate B, the latter won't count. If Candidate B submits the petition with my signature, it'll be excluded from the overall count.
And as a result, the top Republican candidate in this race may be disqualified.
Voters will go to the polls today in five states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island -- making it the biggest day for presidential primaries since mid-March. And while every contest matters, there's little doubt that Pennsylvania is of particular significance today.
Indeed, especially when it comes to the Republican race, the Keystone State may very well decide who wins the nomination.
At first blush, the way in which Pennsylvania allocates delegates may seem confusing. On the one hand, 2016 calendars show the state offering up 71 Republican delegates. On the other hand, we also know only 17 bound Republican delegates are on the line today.
So, what's this all about? The Washington Postexplained last week:
While most states award convention delegates on a winner-take-all or proportional basis, 54 of Pennsylvania's 71 delegates -- three for each of 18 congressional districts -- are officially unbound to a candidate and do not have to announce their intentions before Tuesday's vote. The winners can vote for whomever they want at the convention.
"I picked a very interesting year to run," said Larry Stohler, 71, a former Lebanon County commissioner who says he would vote at the convention for whichever candidate wins here in the 6th Congressional District -- at least on the first ballot.
As you're watching MSNBC's live coverage tonight, keep in mind that one GOP candidate, probably Donald Trump, will win the most votes in Pennsylvania, which will give him an additional 17 delegates. That's good for him, but it's not a particularly large number. At the same time, the state's voters will also elect 54 unbound delegates, and no one really knows what they'd do at the convention.
And that's where the story starts to get more interesting.
The results of the latest USA Today/Suffolk University poll were released yesterday, and the data "underscores the serious challenges" the likely presidential nominees face "to heal divisions within their own parties." While these divisions are already widely recognized in Republican politics, it was the Democratic numbers that stood out.
Among Democrats, USA Todayreported, "four in 10 supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders say they aren't sure they would vote for Clinton." David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, added:
Don't laugh -- 13% of Sanders voters say they will vote for Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton. If Trump were to lose the nomination, 19% of Sanders voters would choose Cruz over Clinton; and if John Kasich were the nominee, 23% of Sanders voters would vote for the Ohio governor over the former secretary of State.
At first blush, this seems extremely hard to believe. Why would supporters of an apologetic liberal want to reward a radicalized Republican Party with control of the White House -- on purpose? One in five Sanders supporters are comfortable with the idea of electing President Ted Cruz? Is this some sort of typo?
I don't think the poll is necessarily wrong, at least insofar as it reflects public attitudes of the moment, but the political world should probably take a deep breath before looking at these results as necessarily predictive.
Yesterday morning, Ted Cruz boasted that his new agreement with John Kasich was "big news." Around the same time, John Kasich assured reporters that his new agreement with Ted Cruz was "no big deal." The competing messages were the first sign that this Republican marriage of convenience was off to a rough start.
At least in theory, the plan, if executed effectively, could work to the candidates' benefit. As we discussed yesterday, the point is to consolidate the anti-Trump vote in specific states to increase the odds of a contested convention: Cruz is stronger in Indiana, so Kasich would agree pull back there, and Kasich is stronger in Oregon and New Mexico, so Cruz would give up competing in these states.
But as MSNBC's Leigh Ann Caldwell reported, it only took hours before the alliance started to fray.
[A]t a diner in Philadelphia Monday morning, Kasich said he wouldn't direct his voters to support Cruz in the Hoosier State -- a critical decision that could have the most weight in the state.
"I've never told them not to vote for me. They ought to vote for me, but I'm not over there campaigning and spending resources," Kasich said. The Ohio governor will still be on the ballot in Indiana.
It is becoming apparent that this is an agreement between the two campaigns to hold their fire against each other in just three states -- and a directive for the outside groups backing them to do the same.
This isn't to say a non-aggression pact is meaningless, but the Cruz-Kasich alliance was supposed to advance a larger goal: undermining Trump before it's too late. It took less than half a day, however, for Kasich to say his supporters in Indiana should most definitely vote for him, which is pretty much the opposite of the message he was supposed to make after striking a deal with Cruz. Indeed, Kasich's message also contradicted what his campaign co-chair in Indiana told local media yesterday morning.
And sure enough, a Cruz super PAC said soon after that it would leave an anti-Kasich television ad on the air.
Hillary Clinton explains how she would help families who were negatively affected by the 1994 crime bill signed by her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, and how she would help ensure that all eligible Americans are able to vote. Plus, Rachel Maddow asks Hillary Clinton whether military experience is something she is considering in a... watch
Hillary Clinton discusses the fight to end systemic racism, and what more must be done to ensure equal rights and pay regardless of race or gender. Plus: Clinton explains how her administration would differ from President Obama’s. watch
Hillary Clinton tells Rachel Maddow why her platform is the most realistic to achieve Democratic Party goals, and compares the 2008 Democratic presidential contest – which pitted Clinton against eventual winner President Obama - to the 2016 race. watch
Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise.