America just had a rough night

REUTERS/Jim Bourg

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Just before the New Hampshire primary results came in Tuesday, the Supreme Court reminded us of the some of the actual policy stakes this presidential election.

Five justices put a hold on the core of President Obama's climate change plan, pending an appeals court challenge. If the litigation drags on and the Supreme Court eventually strikes down Obama's climate plan, it will be up to the next president's Environmental Protection Agency to figure out how to fill the gap — or do nothing at all, as the case may be, which would be a policy disaster.

The next president will be responsible for the minute details of policy in uncontrollable circumstances, and decisionmaking will not be as easy as pressing a button in the Oval Office marked "Make America Great Again" or "Lead a Mass Political Movement."

Then news came that New Hampshire Republicans voted for Donald Trump to be the GOP presidential nominee — a man who said the night before that he did not believe in climate change because it is cold outside in New Hampshire — following a shallow campaign fueled by the high purposes of building a border wall, barring Muslims from entering the country and fighting to make it more acceptable for people to insult each other.

The other Republican candidates are also varying degrees of irresponsible on global warming, among other things. But Trump appears uniquely uninterested in policy substance and devoid of any sense of responsibility or conscience.

New Hampshire Democrats, meanwhile, handed a resounding victory to a man who, if nominated and run against Trump, would give the Democrats their best shot at handing the White House to the megalomaniac billionaire. Bernie Sanders pulled out his usual argument Tuesday night, promising that he would lead a "political revolution" that would upend politics and activate all sorts of discouraged potential voters.

The mistake he makes is assuming that those who do not vote have been waiting for him. History suggests that the sort of transformation he is proposing is very likely to fail, particularly absent a major national crisis.

REUTERS/Jim Bourg

If his agenda were remarkably creative or if he had uncommon policy smarts, perhaps he would be worth the plunge. Instead, his policies are often lazily left-wing, which proves that he is, as his supporters often point out, outside the political mainstream — but not that he is right.

From here, more reasonable Republicans need to get behind a single anti-Trump, anti-Ted Cruz candidate, preferably one of the governors, narrowing the race to a contest between mere right-wing conservatism and alarming extremism.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, must do at least three things.

First, she must defang Sanders's arguments about money in politics. As the New Hampshire race ended, she was starting to hone in on a more effective message: The system is not great, but everyone — even, to some degree, Sanders — is a part of it. That does not mean everyone is corrupt. This should shift some focus onto potential solutions, on which she and Sanders actually agree on a lot.

Second, she must find a way to seem more authentic. She won the 2008 New Hampshire primary in part because she teared up on camera at a town hall just before the vote. Now polls show many voters do not trust her.

"I just don't know what she's going to do when she's in the White House. I just don't," Johannes Sorto, a University of New Hampshire student, told me at a Clinton rally in Manchester on Monday.

Clinton's tears-in-the-eyes moment was powerful because it indicated she cared deeply about what she was saying. She cannot stage another moment like that — it was organic, which is what gave it power. She is getting better at discussing her motivations for pursuing public service, but her delivery still often seems manufactured. Somehow, this must change.

Third, she cannot panic. Dramatically changing her agenda in response to Sanders's win would contribute to the sense that she is inauthentic. Besides, her agenda is better than his — more politically realistic and more carefully crafted. Moreover, her argument that she is effective as well as progressive is the best thing she has going for her.

New Hampshire voters may have gone with their hearts on Tuesday night. The Supreme Court, however, should remind everyone of how important it is for voters to go with their heads.

NOW WATCH: Watch the most quotable moments from Trump's New Hampshire victory speech