NEVADA—Gravis: Clinton 50, Sanders 27, O’Malley 1
NEVADA—Gravis: Trump 33, Cruz 20, Rubio 11, Carson 6, Fiorina 5, Bush 5, Christie 5, Paul 1, Santorum 1
Donald Trump seems to be coming to terms with the idea he might lose in Iowa, Politico reports.
Said Trump: “If I come in second by 2 points, they’ll say ‘Ooh, this is a terrible defeat.’ It’s not terrible.”
“It seemed like a classic case of expectations-setting common to presidential campaigns, but rarely seen from Trump, who has consistently led both in national and early-state polls.”
New York Times: “He allowed at one point in his speech that he could finish in the top four and be happy, but then quickly said he wants to win Iowa and that the media would say he lost no matter how close to first place he came.”
New York Times: “In the past week, any semblance of a friendship between Mr. Trump and Bill Clinton came to an ugly end as the former president and his wife’s presidential campaign found themselves in a muddy battle over sexism with the Republican candidate who has upended this election cycle with his insults and attacks.”
“The criticism of Mr. Clinton’s personal life comes as Mrs. Clinton is increasingly relying on the former president, mentioning him in almost every speech as she praises his economic record. But Mr. Trump’s attacks on him are now rippling through the race, with other candidates and even a prominent newspaper columnist suggesting that Mr. Clinton’s sexual history is fair game.”
Politico: Trump was for the Clintons before he was against them.
Frank Luntz explains that Trump voters hate everything you stand for:
I spent three hours in a deep dialogue focus group with 29 Trump supporters. The phenomenon of “The Donald” is rooted in a psyche far deeper and more consequential than next November’s presidential election. His support denotes an abiding distrust in — and disrespect for — the governing elite. These individuals do not like being told by Washington or Wall Street what is best for them, do not like the direction America is headed in, and disdain President Barack Obama and his (perceived) circle of self-righteous, tone-deaf governing partisans.
Trump voters are not just angry — they want revenge.
Mr Trump has adroitly filled the vacuum of vitriol, establishing himself as the bold, brash, take-no-prisoners megaphone for the frustrated masses. They see him as the antidote to all that Mr Obama has made wrong with America. So to understand why millions love Mr Trump so much, you have to take a step back and listen to why they hate Mr Obama so much.
Here, my Trump voter focus group was particularly illuminating. Some still believe the president is not Christian. Many believe he does not love America. And just about all of them think he does not reflect the values the country was built upon. Indeed, within this growing faction, Mr Trump has licence to say just about anything. As we have seen repeatedly, the more outrageous the accusation, the more receptive the ear.
Mr. Luntz, that is all bullshit. Thinking the President is not a Christian or believing he does not love America or that the does not believe in the values the country was built on is all fucking code. They hate the President because he is black. They are racists, and are angry that a black man got to be President. And now they want revenge? LOL. What are they going to try to do? Bring back slavery so that the blacks know their place? Maybe. They support Trump because he wants to deport all Latinos and Muslims.
Washington Post: “Clinton has hardly written off the state, but appears to be working on the assumption that a loss here would be only a temporary blow on the way to a relatively easy primary victory. She is likely to defeat Sanders the week before in Iowa, where the first 2016 presidential selection contest will be held, and again in the next two contests in South Carolina and Nevada. She is also favored in the heavy slate of southern and other states that vote in early and mid-March.”
Nate Cohn reminds us not to get overly invested in the polls:
In recent primary campaigns, going back to the 2004 Democratic primary, those candidates who have led in Iowa or New Hampshire polls with just one month to go have lost as often as they have won. On average, candidates’ share of the vote at this stage differed from their final share of the vote by around seven percentage points. With many candidates running, it was not at all uncommon for a candidate to move by more.
The most extreme examples are just that. In 2004, John Edwards held 7 percent of the support in Iowa with a month to go; he won around 32 percent. In 2008, John McCain held 18 percent in New Hampshire; he won with 37 percent. In 2012 in Iowa, Rick Santorum held 5 percent; he won with 25 percent.
But Martin Longman says things probably won’t change:
On the Democratic side, the big question that remains is whether Sanders can win in New Hampshire even if he loses in Iowa. As Bill Bradley discovered in 2000, a small lead in the Granite State can evaporate in a hurry in the aftermath of a punishing loss in the Hawkeye State. I know the Sanders folks haven’t given up on winning Iowa outright, but I think that’s a long shot and they should probably stop saying that they think they can win. If they can reduce expectations there enough, they might get a positive spin out of the results even if they lose. And that could be just enough for them to hold onto what looks like a very small and tenuous lead in New Hampshire.
The problem for Sanders is that it’s hard to see where he would get his next win after New Hampshire. In 2008, it wasn’t too hard to identify states that would go to Obama after New Hampshire. There were a lot of them. At one point, I was able to correctly predict that Obama would win the next twelve contests in a row based solely on demographic data. There’s nothing like that out there for Sanders. I don’t see any slam-dunk Sanders states, including New Hampshire and Vermont. What I see are a small handful of states where he should be competitive and have a real shot. And I don’t see that changing much even if he wins the first two contests.
There’s definitely a lot of potential for volatility in the race over the next five or six weeks, but it also looks predictable in some ways. Clinton looks like a juggernaut. Rivals to Trump and Cruz look weak and unlikely to make a move. I expect someone to emerge on the Republican side to rival the top two, but not necessarily with enough strength to matter. The scenario that has the most potential to shake up the race is a much better than expected performance by Jeb. More likely scenarios involve stronger than expected finishes by Rubio or Christie.
Anything other than this, like a Carson revival or Paul, Kasich or Fiorina boomlet would be pretty shocking to me at this point. I still think Kasich is the best general election candidate they have, but I don’t think the GOP electorate is in a general election mindset.
Ben Ginsberg, the former counsel to both Mitt Romney’s and George W. Bush’s presidential bids, detailed three possible scenarios in the Wall Street Journal for the Republican convention:
“Three convention scenarios can emerge after 56 states and territories choose their delegates between Feb. 1 and June 7: There will be a clear winner, a bunched up field of several candidates, or a leader who can’t get a majority of delegates on the first ballot. The latter two scenarios would make Cleveland uncharted territory.”
This chart from Paul Krugman comparing the employment numbers for Bush and Obama.
Kevin Drum: “Obama’s economic performance is even better than it looks. […] George Bush squandered his political capital on tax cuts for the wealthy and soft regulation of Wall Street. We saw the results of that. Obama spent his political capital on stimulus and health care and the social safety net. The result has been a sustained recovery despite a net decrease in government spending over the past six years. Not bad.”
Steve Benen: “…the closer one looks, the more extraordinary the last few years appear. Sure, Bush inherited a mild economic downturn, but he was able to implement the economic agenda he believed would work. It didn’t. Obama, on the other hand, inherited the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, had to overcome spending cuts and a shrinking public sector, and still managed to turn the private-sector job market around while cutting the unemployment rate from 10% to 5%.