NATIONAL—Quinnipiac: Clinton 61, Sanders 30, O’Malley 2
NATIONAL—Emerson College: Trump 36, Cruz 21, Rubio 13, Carson 7, Bush 6, Christie 6, Fiorina 5.
NATIONAL—Quinnipiac: Trump 28, Cruz 24, Rubio 12, Carson 10, Bush 4, Christie 6, Paul 2, Fiorina 2, Kasich 1, Huckabee 1, Santorum 1
SOUTH CAROLINA—AIF: Cruz 27, Trump 27, Rubio 12, Carson 11, Bush 7.
FLORIDA—AIF: Trump 29, Cruz 18, Rubio 17, Bush 10.
NEW HAMPSHIRE—AIF: Trump 24, Cruz 16, Rubio 14, Christie 13, Bush 9.
NATIONAL—Quinnipiac: Clinton 47, Trump 40 | Clinton 44, Cruz 44 | Clinton 44, Rubio 43 | Sanders 51, Trump 38 | Cruz 44, Sanders 43 | Rubio 45, Sanders 42 |
NATIONAL—PPP: Clinton 46, Trump 43 | Clinton 45, Cruz 43 | Rubio 44, Clinton 43 | Clinton 45, Carson 45 | Clinton 44, Bush 39 | Trump 43, Sanders 41 | Cruz 42, Sanders 41 | Rubio 42, Sanders 39 | Sanders 41, Carson 41 | Bush 42, Sanders 41
Jeet Heer says Hillary got the debate of her dreams last Saturday:
If Bernie Sanders or Martin O’Malley could control the circumstances and terms of Saturday’s debate, the third of the Democratic primary, it would have been a very different evening. It’s easy to imagine an ideal Sanders debate: a focus on how inequality is destroying the middle class and why Sanders, unlike Clinton, is willing to stand-up to corporate plutocrats and Wall Street. Martin O’Malley’s perfect debate would be one where his expertise in progressive wonkery could shine, and he would emerge as a sleek, plausible alternative. But world events, the unfolding strangeness of the Republican field, and the sensation-loving mindset of the media all conspired to create a debate that allowed Hillary Clinton to dominate, highlighting the areas where she has the most experience and is most comfortable discussing. Unfortunately for both of Clinton’s rivals, the actual debate felt almost scripted to allow her to present her most persuasive self, the confident and experienced master of a broadly supported centrist foreign policy.
[…] One striking fact about the argument between Sanders and Clinton was that both candidates were much more substantial and informed than the discussions of the same issues in recent Republican debates which have amounted to little more than competitive chest-thumping. The Republicans have made it clear that they plan to use national security and fears of terrorism to win back the White House next November. Perhaps one other advantage of tonight’s debate for Hillary Clinton is that it showed that she’s well armed for that fight.
Brian Beutler says Democrats understand Trump better than Republicans do, and not because he is a Democrat or a Clinton plant.
It’s intellectually shallow to pretend Donald Trump is vastly more reactionary than other candidates in the Republican primary. Trump lurks at the right-most edge of the field on the general question of how aggressively we should close American society, but only by an increment. Where most GOP candidates want to prohibit Muslim refugee settlement in the U.S., Trump wants to prohibit Muslim immigration more broadly. Where other candidates want to step up deportation of unauthorized immigrants quite a lot, Trump wants to step it up even more. Where Ted Cruz wants to carpet-bomb Iraq and Syria and “make the sand glow” there, Trump wants to target the families of jihadi fighters with violence. On other issues, like war-making and tax policy, Trump isn’t even the most right-wing candidate in the field.
It’s thus disingenuous for the media, and certain Republican officials—anyone, really—to treat Trump as an anomaly rather than a reflection of the largest segment of the Republican base. But when Democratic candidates do it, it’s also extremely clever. It’s a testament both to the fact that Trump stands a shockingly good chance of winning the GOP nomination, and that Democrats are more clear-eyed about the state of the Republican party than the Republican establishment is.
Republicans and the media are surprised. Democrats are not, because it turns out that the Republican Party is what we thought it was: racist, bigoted and fascist. We liberals were proven right. You want to prove us wrong? Give Trump not a single Republican vote in any election anywhere.
Nate Cohn on how Donald Trump could win the nomination, but he probably won’t.
Mr. Trump has emerged as a true factional candidate — much more like Howard Dean or Pat Buchanan than Herman Cain, or other candidates who have surged to the top of the polls only to collapse.
But it’s still too soon to say Mr. Trump is the front-runner for the nomination. He has a high floor but a low ceiling, and although he has weathered many controversies, the toughest days are yet to come.
The polls already show initial signs of those challenges, like Ted Cruz’s lead in Iowa; the number of Republicans who say they would not support him; his weakness in polls of verified voters; and his smaller or nonexistent leads in one-on-one matchups against likely rivals.
His chances of winning — which are real, even if not good — depend much more on the weaknesses of his opponents than his own strengths. The good news for Mr. Trump is that the opposition is flawed enough to entertain such an outcome.
Here is a pro-tip for neophytes in the audience — Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. If a few major labor unions had joined the Communications Workers in risking the Wrath of Clinton by endorsing Sanders, I think he would qualify as a long-shot but as things stand he is a no-shot. That means Clinton’s goals in these debates are pretty simple: she needs to avoid gaffes, and she wants to evade without committing herself to anything that will be too problematic in a general election.
She pulled it off. When baited by David Muir and Bernie Sanders about whether corporate America “loves” her, Clinton stood up for her progressive record while also standing up for the notion that progressive economic policy would be win-win, including for business. It was a passable primary campaign answer, but most of all she delivered an answer that set her up for a general election rather than getting sucked into a leftier-than-thou bidding war with Sanders.
More than that, she once again reminded the world that debating is a format in which she excels. Clinton is not the greatest orator in contemporary politics, but she is among the wonkiest of major politicians — certainly the wonkiest one on the stage — and she’s an extremely effective public speaker for a wonk. Back and forth exchanges over things like the difference between debt-free college and tuition-free college highlighted her virtues as a politician far better than any setpiece speech or 30-second ad would.
Jeff Greenfield wonders whether Donald Trump could break the Republican Party:
“The most striking examples of party fissure in American politics have come when a party breaks with a long pattern of accommodating different factions, and moves decisively toward one side. It has happened with the Democrats twice, both over civil rights… In 1948, the party’s embrace of a stronger civil rights plank led Southern delegations to walk out of the convention… Twenty years later, Alabama Gov. George Wallace led a similar anti-civil rights third party movement that won five Southern states.”
“In two other cases, a dramatic shift in intra-party power led to significant defections on the losing side. In 1964, when Republican conservatives succeeded in nominating a divisive champion of their cause in Barry Goldwater, liberal Republicans (there were such things back then) like New York Gov. Rockefeller, Michigan Gov. (George) Romney, and others refused to endorse the nominee… Eight years later, when a deeply divided Democratic Party nominated anti-war hero George McGovern, George Meany led the AFL-CIO to a position of neutrality between McGovern and Nixon—the first time labor had refused to back a Democrat for President.”
“Would a Trump nomination be another example of such a power shift? Yes, although not a shift in an ideological sense. It would represent a more radical kind of shift, with power moving from party officials and office-holders to deeply alienated voters and to their media tribunes.”
The New York Times says Bernie Sanders struggles to appear “presidential:” “Most candidates evolve: Barack Obama and George W. Bush became better at communicating and campaigning during their first presidential races, and their agendas developed overarching themes. Mr. Sanders, by contrast, was repeating old talking points on Saturday night — like breaking up big banks and increasing taxes on the rich — without convincingly saying how he would achieve those goals or presenting them in powerful new language. As the debate demonstrated, he has yet to grow from a movement messiah into a national candidate whom many people can imagine as president.”
All in all, the debate did nothing to change the dynamics of the Democratic contest, and much of what was said will soon be forgotten. There will be another debate in January, and then we will find out if Bernie Sanders really is counting on his field organization and an exceed-the-expectations strategy instead of any game-change-y debate moments to close the gap with Clinton. As for HRC, she’s already regained the “inevitability” factor she came into the Invisible Primary carrying. Even if Sanders somehow wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton still has a far more plausible path to the nomination, thanks to her standing in the many states that are not as honkified and activist-dominated as the first two. But the whole world will still be watching her for a stumble. It did not happen at St. Anselm’s College.
Republican foreign policy wouldn’t just needlessly kill untold numbers through needless military aggressions—it would also generate a massive increase in terrorism and instability just as George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq did. Republican tax policy wouldn’t just benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class—it would also bust the budget, create massive deficits and hurt the demand-side consumer economy. Republican climate policy wouldn’t just benefit fossil fuel companies and increase pollution—it would also put the entire planet at risk of eventual civilization and species collapse.
Republican candidates are catering to a furious and fearful population of resentful paranoiacs. Their policy platforms are predictably wildly irresponsible.
The Democratic Party may still have a way to go in becoming as progressive as it needs to be. But there’s no question that only one of America’s two parties can be counted on to do the basic job of running the government.
The White House is promising President Obama will deliver a “non-traditional” State of the Union address next month, “eschewing the standard litany of policy proposals for a broader discussion on the challenges facing the country.”
“Rather than fade into the lame duck phase of his presidency, the White House said Obama is eager to use 2016 to take steps that drive the debate in the 2016 race. He also expects to be active on the campaign trail, stumping for the Democratic presidential nominee and other party candidates.”
First Read: “This won’t be a typical SOTU, so we’re told. It will likely be aspirational that some political opponents will likely view as an attempt to throw down the gauntlet on a progressive agenda. And it will come just three weeks before Iowa.”
With President Obama giving his year end news conference today, it’s clear he’s no lame duck president. His accomplishments in 2015 are striking: The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, an Iran nuclear agreement, normalized relations with Cuba and a worldwide climate change pact. He also had two huge victories at the Supreme Court on health care reform and same-sex marriage. […] Obama’s ability to continually make progress on his agenda when he’s supposed to be a lame duck is a potential wildcard for the presidential race. The news that Obama’s State of the Union address will be “non-traditional” is also intriguing. I suspect he’ll give the kind of speech you would hear at a political convention: aspirational and entirely focused on the future. Obama is very good at these types of speeches and he’ll effectively set the stage for the ultimate Democratic nominee.
The fact that Obama’s address comes on January 12, three weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses, is also interesting timing. NBC News reports that the White House “has opened the possibility of an endorsement” of a candidate. That will almost certainly be Hillary Clinton. It’s a recognition that just as Clinton’s ambitions are tied to Obama’s success, the same is true of Clinton winning and Obama’s legacy. The two former rivals have never has their interests more closely aligned.
It’s quite possible Obama could endorse Clinton before the Iowa caucuses. An early endorsement would allow the Democratic party to focus on the general election for ten full months. Clinton has done her part by building a huge lead in the polls. Obama could seal the deal — and perhaps his own legacy — with an endorsement in January.
That would all be spectacular.
The New York Times wonders if Trump can turn out his vote: “Translating a personality-driven campaign to the voting booth is no easy feat, especially for a candidate who has never run before. But here in the state with the first nominating contest, about six weeks away, Mr. Trump has put off the nuts and bolts of organizing. A loss in Iowa for Mr. Trump, where he has devoted the most resources of his campaign, could imperil his leads in the next two nominating states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where his get-out-the-vote organizations are even less robust.”
“A successful ground game is crucial in Iowa because of the state’s complicated method of caucus voting, but the Trump campaign has fallen behind some of its own benchmarks.”
Trump really doesn’t have that much of a campaign organization, let alone a voter outreach or Get Out Vote operation. Indeed, I wonder if we are heading for the upsets of upsets, where a candidate assumes polls actually mean real votes (and Trump talks that way) and thus his campaign just assume the voters will show up for him, while at the same time his voters see him crushing it at the polls and assume they don’t have to show up. It happens all the time. Hence, get out the vote operations within campaigns and canvassing. Is anyone canvassing for Donald in Iowa? I kinda doubt it.