Read Stuff, You Should: Nomination Fever
Happy Birthday to Ruth Wilson, 33.
I wrote three items on 2016 presidential nominations yesterday. Are three more needed today? I guess we’ll see. Maybe just start with the good stuff:
1. I agree with Dan Drezner’s complaint about reporting focus groups as if they were news. At PostEverything.
2. At HuffPollster, Natalie Jackson looks at recent evidence showing a Fox News effect on presidential election voting, and suspects it’s less impressive than advertised. Sounds right to me.
3. Seth Masket at Pacific Standard argues in favor of more state legislative staff. Yes.
4. FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver assesses the 2016 Republican presidential field. Reasonable, with one exception: A plurality nomination win (by Rand Paul or anyone else) is extremely unlikely. Winnowing works. If Paul is really capped at well under 50 percent (as I suspect would be the case), he’s not going to be the nominee.
5. One way to look at those fields, from Philip Bump at the Fix, is that the Democrats are (on average) far older than the Republicans.
6. Conservative writer Philip Klein has a book out on health-care options for anti-Obamacare Republicans. I haven’t read it, but he’s a straight shooter, especially on this subject. He lays out the argument at the Washington Examiner. Recommended for conservatives, and for liberals who want to know what conservatives are talking about.
7. Klein’s book gets a favorable review from health-care economist Aaron Carroll at the Incidental Economist.
8. And, yes, this anecdote from Reggie Love’s upcoming book, courtesy of the Washington Post’s Carlos Lozada.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg View's editorial board or Bloomberg LP, its owners and investors.
To contact the author on this story:
Jonathan Bernstein at email@example.com
To contact the editor on this story:
Max Berley at firstname.lastname@example.org