It’s often instructive when serious political analysts — those not engaged in spin, or airy generalizations, or in the snail’s-eye search for “game change” events — have a serious difference of opinion. That’s how I’d characterize political scientist John Sides’ critique of his Washington Post colleague Dan Balz’s assessment of the positioning of the two major parties going into the 2016 presidential election cycle.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=211747