A reality check on 2016’s economically marginalized (John Hudak, Brookings)

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/16/economic-marginalization-reality-check/

After Election 2016 (David Wessel, Stuart Butler, John Hudak, Elaine Kamarck, Bruce Riedel, Fred Dews, Brookings)

https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/after-election-2016/

Mike Pence falls short…of an impossible task (John Hudak, Brookings)

Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence had the unenviable task of taking the debate stage tonight. It wasn’t his first debate—though certainly his grandest debate stage. What made his job difficult tonight was to face off against Sen. Tim Kaine after the Trump-Pence ticket had perhaps the worst week of the campaign season. The disastrous week had nothing to do with Mike Pence, his behaviors, his words, his history, his performance. It had everything to do with his running mate. Alas, Pence was in the spotlight tonight, and did little to change the Trump-dominated conversation.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/10/04/mike-pence-falls-shortof-an-impossible-task/

The DEA’s marijuana decision is more important than rescheduling (John Hudak, Brookings)

https://www.brookings.edu/2016/08/11/the-deas-marijuana-decision-is-more-important-than-rescheduling/

How Nevadans should think about Question 2 (John Hudak, Brookings)

https://www.brookings.edu/2016/08/02/how-nevadans-should-think-about-question-2/

In the marijuana industry, size doesn’t always matter (John Hudak, Brookings)

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/06/29-big-marijuana-industry-size-corporate-structure-hudak

2016 election (not-a-horse race) update (John Hudak,Fred Dews, Brookings)

http://www.brookings.edu/research/podcasts/2016/06/election-update

Worry about bad marijuana—not Big Marijuana (John Hudak, Jonathan Rauch, Brookings)

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2016/06/16-big-marijuana-rauch-hudak

After California, it’s time for Clinton and Trump to pick their VPs (John Hudak, Brookings)

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/06/08-after-california-clinton-trump-need-to-pick-vice-presidents-hudak

Clearing up misconceptions about marijuana rescheduling: What it means for existing state systems (John Hudak, Grace Wallack, Brookings)

As marijuana rescheduling has gained traction in Congress and DEA has announced it will rule on a rescheduling this summer, a common concern has emerged in the cannabis reform community and among industry actors. It goes something like this: "If marijuana is moved to Schedule II, the Feds will shut down our state's legal system." The worry is that this administrative change will make marijuana pharmaceuticals legal and thus require all such products to be removed from the market until FDA approval is granted. And of course, clinical drug testing and FDA approval often takes years and hundreds of millions (if not more) dollars in research—something cannabusinesses can't afford and time medical marijuana patients don't have

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/05/27-misconceptions-marijuana-rescheduling-hudak-wallack

On 4/20, top minds discuss critical issues in the marijuana policy debate (John Hudak, Brookings)

April 20th serves as the highest of High Holidays for the marijuana movement. This year comes, once again, with rapid policy changes around medical and recreational marijuana. Several states will vote on recreational or medical marijuana initiatives this fall, including Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, California, Florida, Arkansas and possibly others. Legislatures in Vermont and Rhode Island are considering legalization legislation currently. On Sunday, Gov. Wolf (D-PA) signed into law the nation’s 25th medical marijuana program, and this week, the United Nations is holding a special session on drug policy.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/04/20-critical-issues-in-the-marijuana-policy-debate-hudak

UNGASS and the consequences of international drug policy (John Hudak, Brookings)

In the coming weeks, the eyes of the drug policy community will be fixated on the United Nations. As the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the World Drug Problem draws near, the future of international drug policy is at stake. Questions abound about whether UNGASS will push forward the status quo or be open to reform. Will recent changes to drug laws in states across the U.S., and in member countries like Uruguay, Canada, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, and others drive the international body to shift away from a powerfully prohibitionist position?

Continue reading here ...

Is the media letting you down lately? Your odds look good in Las Vegas (John Hudak, Brookings)

Last week, I got to feel absolutely hopeful about the future of America media. This rare experience made me reflect positively on how this nation's youth will help transform the Fourth Estate.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/03/25-media-letting-you-down-las-vegas-hudak

Don’t judge McConnell on Scalia’s SCOTUS replacement (John Hudak, Molly E. Reynolds, Brookings)

In the weeks since Justice Antonin Scalia died, much of the commentary around the vacancy has focused on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In many ways, McConnell brought that outsized role upon himself. He quickly responded to Scalia’s death with a public pronouncement that the seat would not be filled until after the election. It caused an uproar over whether his plan was constitutional or beneath the institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/03/03-mcconnell-scalia-congress-options-hudak-reynolds

What the 2016 U.S. presidential election means for the Middle East (John Hudak, Brookings)

This report was finalized on February 15, 2016. On February 20, 2016, Hillary Clinton won Nevada’s Democratic caucuses with 52.6% of the vote, claiming 19 of34 delegates; Donald Trump won South Carolina’s Republican primaries, sweeping all 50 delegates with 32.5% of the vote; and Jeb Bush, having received only 7.8% of the vote, suspended his campaign.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2016/02/22-us-presidential-election-middle-east-hudak

If Clinton wins in November, she'll have Sanders to thank (John Hudak, Brookings)

For Bernie Sanders, the Nevada caucuses were tough. Sure, his supporters have much to cheer about. Just a year ago he was an unknown candidate, and he came within five points of beating what he rightly calls "the most powerful political operation in America" in a state considered part of the Clinton firewall. He should take pride in what he has organized, accomplished and the people who he connected to. And frankly, any Clinton supporter who diminishes what Sanders' campaign has done is doing a disservice to their party and to their candidate. Sanders has managed something Clinton has been ill-equipped to do: connect with a variety of demographic groups who love Barack Obama but feel left behind by Obama's recovery. Clinton has cloaked herself in the Obama record, and, in the process, she has alienated those who have not reaped the fruits of his progressive labor.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/02/21-after-nevada-sanders-still-important-hudak

Sanders and Trump seize on misplaced anger (John Hudak, Brookings)

In a recent post, my colleague Elaine Kamarck contends that the anger of American voters goes a long way toward explaining the current presidential race; that some voters have concluded that only by breaking the mold in a big way—by electing a billionaire with no government experience or a Socialist—can America be saved. There is much to agree with in that post, but I think there is much more to the “anger” story surrounding Trump and Sanders.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/02/17-sanders-trump-candidate-anger-democracy-hudak

How Scalia’s death may have killed Supreme Court conservatism (John Hudak, Brookings)

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death not only created an opening on the Supreme Court, but also ignited what will be one of the most intense political battles of the modern era. A liberal president with the constitutional obligation to nominate justices to the high court, a conservative Republican Senate with the constitutional obligation to advise and consent to nominations, and a competitive presidential election less than nine months away, all make the stakes in selecting Scalia’s successor quite high.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/02/15-scalia-death-of-conservative-jurisprudence-hudak

Christie is wrong. Rubio is a bigger gamble than Obama was (John Hudak, Brookings)

In the recent GOP debate, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie battered Florida Senator Marco Rubio repeatedly. He showed no mercy. At every turn, Christie critiqued Rubio, used his words against him, and laid out his record—or lack thereof—to make an incredibly important and damning statement: Marco Rubio is unprepared to be President of the United States.

However, Christie went further. He didn’t simply level the charge that Rubio was unprepared. He said something even more fatal. Christie said Rubio was just like Obama—an inexperienced first term Senator not prepared for the job.

On that point, however, Christie was flat-out wrong. On Obama’s worst days in the 2008 campaign, he never performed as poorly as Marco Rubio did in last night’s debate. Despite running against two competent and more experienced Democratic opponents, Barack Obama ran a powerful campaign and climbed the mountain to become his party’s nominee eight years ago. Even with that impressive rise, Obama had rough days in the campaign.

Obama received pushback in 2007 when a leaked campaign memo labeling Senator Clinton “(D-Punjab)” because of her connections to India. Obama ultimately had to apologize for the line. In 2008, right before the New Hampshire primary, he dismissively said Senator Clinton was “likeable enough,” a line that played into the idea that, as a woman, Clinton was being treated differently on the campaign trail. Within days, Obama’s lead in New Hampshire would dissolve and Clinton would go on to win that primary.

Obama caught flack for those lines, and several others, but the criticism of Obama in 2008 rarely played into any existing narrative about his weaknesses—with the exception, perhaps, of being aloof. Yet, even the charge of arrogance is not a disqualifier for the presidency. In fact, many would argue any president needs a bit of it to succeed.

Rubio put on a disastrous performance in last night’s debate. Unlike Obama, however, his bad moments—and there were several—played precisely into the narrative about Rubio’s robotic, overly guarded, heavily scripted campaign that masks a candidate not ready for the highest office. Christie lured him into the trap, but Rubio seemed totally unable to resist relying on his rehearsed rhetoric.

What Christie called Rubio’s “memorized 25 second speech” argued that Obama wasn’t clueless and that “he (Obama) knew exactly what he was doing” in changing America for the worse. The first use of the line seemed on point. However, Rubio then repeated it—three times in a row—in response to Christie’s relentless criticism. The problem for Rubio was not that the line is something Republican voters would disagree with. The problem was that the line had nothing to do with the subsequent responses. It was as if Rubio covered his ears, heard nothing of what was said to him or about him, and simply assumed the Obama slam would be fitting. It was not.

Rubio sounded robotic. Rubio sounded rehearsed. Rubio sounded like an amateur unable to speak without notes and guidance. He sounded exactly like the criticism Bush and Christie and others had been leveling all week.

As seconds ticked off, Rubio looked younger, smaller, and less appealing, and after each response from Christie, he repeated his same line. Like a swimmer in rough seas grabbing the anchor instead of the life preserver, Rubio sank quickly.

Barack Obama never looked that bad and never put in a performance that was so weak. In 2008, Democratic opponents tried to paint Obama in the same light—narrow, overly rhetorical, and unprepared. In the 2008 primary, Clinton’s “3AM phone call” advertisement sought to hammer the point home. While the ad was effective, Obama didn’t play into it. He didn’t flub a question on a grand stage that made viewers think he was a kid interviewing for an adult’s job. Rubio did.

For a young, fresh-faced, new presidential candidate, the charge of being unprepared is tough to overcome. The most disastrous response is to help your opponents make that charge credible.

Chris Christie was masterful last night in picking apart a competitor and giving that competitor enough rope to hang himself. Christie used the debate rules to his advantage, seizing the opportunity to respond when his name was mentioned and floating the carrot of self-destruction by mentioning Rubio’s name. Surely, Christie was prepared for the exchange—although the execution sounded organic and not rehearsed and robotic. Yet, despite that preparation, Christie never could have dreamed that the exchange would do the damage it did.

Christie accomplished everything he wanted to last night, and Rubio helped him accomplish even more. And on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday morning, Christie declared “the whole race changed last night.” He may be right about that. Though it didn’t change because Christie made Rubio look like Obama; it changed because he made Rubio look much worse.

Hillary Clinton's advice that every Republican candidate should embrace (John Hudak, Brookings)

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/01/20-clinton-transition-advice-hudak