Special Sunday Edition of the Open Thread.
IOWA—DM Register/Bloomberg: Clinton 45, Sanders 42, O’Malley 3
IOWA—DM Register/Bloomberg: Trump 28, Cruz 23, Rubio 15, Carson 10, Bush 2, Paul 5, Christie 3, Kasich 2, Huckabee 2, Fiorina 2, Santorum 2
Yesterday, the Gold Standard Iowa poll by Anne Selzer was released. As expected, it finds Clinton and Trump ahead, though they find that Trump’s lead is beatable whereas other polls showed him with a larger more insurmountable lead.
Here are some interesting points from the cross tabs and internals of the poll: “Another sign of a possible cliffhanger Monday night: Although just 9% of likely GOP caucusgoers haven’t yet made a choice, they’re part of the 45% who could be persuaded to change their minds in the final hours.”
As has been the case all along, Sanders has a robust lead among first-time Caucus-goers, but they represent only about a third of likely participants, as compared to 60 percent when Barack Obama beat Clinton in 2008 via a huge turnout. And while Sanders’s base includes both men and women under 30, Clinton has a better than 2-to-1 lead among seniors — still the most likely voters to show up Monday night — and desire for a woman to become president seems more intense than a passion for the kind of political revolution Sanders promises.
Among Republicans, the Iowa Poll confirms the conventional wisdom that Donald Trump has overtaken Ted Cruz; he leads Cruz 28 to 23 percent, reversing a 25 to 22 percent Cruz lead in the last Selzer poll. But the bit of conventional wisdom passionately hoped for by many establishment Republicans — a Marco Rubio surge past Cruz into second place — just ain’t happening. He’s at 15 percent, with no particular signs of momentum, unless you believe Selzer missed some sort of very late, debate-driven change (this poll was still in the field yesterday, though).
Booman says we really need to stop and savor this complete collapse of the House of Bush as shown by the poll.
Looking through the final Des Moines Register polling numbers, I’m struck first of all by how stunningly unsuccessful Jeb Bush has been in winning support. He’s polling at 2%, which means that one out of every fifty people say that they intend to caucus for him. He’s the second choice of 4% (or one in every twenty-five respondents). His 53% unfavorable rating is higher than anyone else polled, including Sarah Palin. His net favorable rating is minus 12%, which is only surpassed by Palin’s minus 13% rating.
When asked how enthusiastic they would be to vote for a candidate in the general, only John Kasich has a lower rating, and that’s because Kasich appears to be largely unknown in the Hawkeye state after having focused all his efforts on winning in New Hampshire.
Gallup finds that Donald Trump, with an unfavorable rating of 60%, would be the most unpopular candidate to be nominated from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992 election.
Los Angeles Times asks if Bernie Sanders is like Obama or Howard Dean: “Targeting technologies pioneered by Obama’s campaign have made it possible for outsider candidates like Sanders to turn out Iowans who a decade ago might have showed up at a rally and then faded away before the caucuses. Now, computers can quickly link them up with a caucus coach who can walk them through the bewildering voting process and even make sure they have a ride on election night.”
“But ultimately, much of the work of sealing a commitment from voters happens through human contact. And to avoid the disappointment fellow Vermonter Howard Dean endured in the 2004 caucuses, when he failed to leverage similar insurgent momentum, the Sanders campaign has been rushing to build the infrastructure to capture enthusiasm and turn it into votes.”
But by Sanders’ own admission, his campaign will not see a turnout like Obama achieved in 2008. Further, his organization has less offices open than Obama did. He will not fail as spectacularly as Dean did, coming in third with 18% behind Kerry with 38% and Edwards with 32%. But he will not win like Obama did.
The New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton and John Kasich for their respective party’s nominations.
Politico: “Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders’ campaigns have agreed in principle to attend four more debates, starting with the proposed New Hampshire event next week, a Clinton campaign aide confirmed Saturday — but an exchange of statements on Saturday called the Feb. 4 date into question.”
“Both campaigns, and Martin O’Malley’s, spent Friday negotiating with the DNC, which has not publicly weighed in on the campaigns’ requests to add the four events — one in February, one in March, one in April, and one in May — since Sanders proposed it this week. The final details are still being ironed out, and no dates or locations have been solidified.”
I mean seriously, they're going to have to use one of those pocket Bibles to swear him in. #ShrimpFingers pic.twitter.com/jQtxO5KtrI
— Andrew Stiles (@AndrewStilesUSA) January 26, 2016
Donald Trump has small hands and small fingers. And you know what that means. And that makes all his other behavior make sense. Overcompensation to the extreme.
Charlie Cook thinks a contested convention is getting more and more likley: “At this point, my gut suggests that by the time we get deep into the process, Trump will appear to have the support of the populist, less ideological third of the GOP, roughly where he is now; Cruz will have consolidated conservatives and roughly one third of the party; a conventional candidate (Bush, Christie, Kasich, or Rubio) will be pulling about a quarter, with the remaining fifth up in the air. That spells a contested convention.”
Sen. Ted Cruz’s “leading Iowa supporters say his get-out-the-vote operation is the best they have seen for a presidential campaign here. He had better hope they are right,” the New York Times reports.
“With his monthlong lead in the polls erased, Mr. Cruz’s hopes for pulling out a much-needed victory over Donald J. Trump in the Iowa caucuses on Monday now rest in the hands of thousands of campaign workers and supporters who are spending this weekend telephoning, emailing and knocking on the doors of likely caucusgoers.”
Meanwhile, experts inside and outside the GOP tell The Hill it “would be a mistake to think Trump’s organization is operating on a wing and a prayer when it comes to getting his supporters to caucus sites around Iowa on Monday night.”
How is it possible that someone [Donald Trump] with so many heresies in his past could be in a position to win more support in conservative Iowa — and have more support among GOP voters nationally — than any other GOP candidate? Maybe voters really are ignorant of his positions. Or maybe, if he does win Iowa and more, perhaps it will means that a lot of Republican voters don’t care about these things as much as they are supposed to.
Philip Klein has a good piece in which he carefully categorizes the various Republican voter groups and concludes that the persistence of Trumpism suggests the party may be far more divided than we thought. Here’s his description of what is driving Trump’s voters:
Trump supporters aren’t particularly ideological. They are frustrated because they think America is in decline economically, culturally and militarily, threatened by other nations on the world stage and by foreigners here at home. They don’t care about economic arguments in favor of free trade or constitutional arguments for executive restraint. They don’t bat an eye when Trump touts the importance of government seizures of private property for non-public use or the virtues of single-payer healthcare….
Trump supporters would be fine with more government spending, on, say, infrastructure, haven’t particularly paid much attention to fights about the chairmanship of congressional committees, and would probably be fine doubling corporate Export-Import bank subsidies if Trump told them it would help crush China.
As the story goes, Donald Trump could win a general election because his political appeal extends beyond traditional Republican voting blocs. He would attract certain types of Democrats, we’re told, and he’d turn out large numbers of low-propensity voterswho’ve become totally disenchanted with the system. There is some truth to each of those claims, and the GOP would be wise to glean some lessons from the rise of Trumpism. The problem with this electoral calculus, however, is that even if Trump peels off discrete slivers of Democrats and manages to bring some significant mass of new voters into the fray, the math still doesn’t add up. His favorability rating among Democrats — and more importantly, among independents — is horrific.
Not to mention that Trump will spark high turnout among Democrats and minorities, motivated to the polls to vote against him, not for him.
First Read asks if Trump can get out the vote: “Just look at our new NBC/WSJ/Marist poll: Donald Trump now has a seven-point lead over Ted Cruz among likely caucus-goers, 32%-25%, with Marco Rubio at 18%.”
“It’s a closer race among past Iowa participants, Trump 29% and Cruz 25%. But among new participants, Trump has a 14-point advantage, 39%-25% — meaning a larger, newer turnout benefits Trump, while a smaller, older turnout helps Cruz. It’s that simple.”
“Are new participants going to flock to the caucus sites on Monday? So far, we’re not seeing it, though participants have until the night of the contest (Feb. 1) to register.”
Jeb Bush pays a price for our Iraq adventure. A vanishingly small price compared to the price all Iraqis are continuing to pay.
Who I’d like the GOP to nominate:
1) Jeb Bush
2) Ted Cruz
3) Ben Carson
4) Mike Huckabee
5) Donald Trump
If Iowa Democrats are more motivated by electing a woman for its own sake than creating more equality, prosperity for all, justice and opportunity afforded by the prospect of a Sanders’ Presidency, then Iowa Democrats are quite superficial.
Perhaps Iowa Democrats actually want to win the Presidency instead of losing 49 states. Perhaps Iowa Democrats no longer believe in the Green Latern Theory of Change, whereby if we just magically elect one person the world will change in an instant. Been there. Done that.
Perhaps the Iowans and you haven’t read the numerous polls that show Sanders does better against all the Republican candidates than Clinton. Try again.
Yeah, if you believe those polls, nine months out from the general election, when the general electorate has no idea who Bernie Sanders is, when the Republican and corporate media wurlitzer has yet to even touch him, then you are in for a very big surprise. I would enjoy seeing all the Bernie supporters learn their lesson, but the stakes are too high to risk it.
The reason Sanders does better in general election polls is because he hasn’t been attacked by Republicans and the media like Hillary has. He’s still a largely unknown quantity. I’m sure Republicans are foaming at mouth at the opportunity to run against a “democratic socialist”, just like Dems want to run against Trump or Cruz.
Exactly Alex. And there is a lot of stuff out there about Sanders that Hillary is not touching because she doesn’t need to right now, but you can bet your ass the Republicans will.
We are lucky to have two great candidates. And OMally
Agreed, Jason. And… while I’m not a die hard Bernie fan (but will happily vote for either Bernie or Hillary) I will point out that a lot of the arguments against Bernie are the same ones used in 2008 against Obama – electability, not vetted, the GOP hasn’t gone after him yet. I’m not really comfortable with that.
I’m also not comfortable with Dana’s comments. Again, they are quite similar to what was said in 2008 against Obama supporters – just replace woman with black man. Yeah, I’ve heard this before.
We have two great candidates. Perhaps we could focus on that?
Remember when John Kerry was nominated because he was the most “electable?”
President Kerry was great.
And Hillary Clinton was the most “electable” when she was running against that African American guy with the foreign-sounding name. Anybody remember his name?
So, yeah, vote to nominate the pro-death penalty, pro-Irag war, pro-Wall Street candidate because she is more “electable.”
I can’t think of a better reason.
Does anyone see how unhinged Bernie Sanders appear when he gets angry? I seriously don’t think he has the temperament for what I want to see in a president. He would have to do some serious negotiating and compromising to get most of his ideas passed and I don’t think he has it in him.
Whoever the Democrats nominate is going to be in a dog fight. This is a big national intelligence test, and our past performance on these things doesn’t fill me with confidence.
I have to agree with AQC, though not really a valid reason I would think to not vote for someone, but he does look to be someone to lose his cool quickly. My first impression of him was “he looks crazy”.
That’s “Obama isn’t hard working” analog.
Frankly I think it is progress that we are talking about the men being unhinged rather than the women in this race. Still, Bernie has been a politician for awhile and he’s never been the most polished character on the scene. This goes to the “electibility” question, but doesn’t diminish his ideas or basic premise that the US Government no longer works for its citizens and it is time to change that.
That’s the thing. I agree with Bernie Sanders, but I don’t want him to be the President, for a whole host of reasons that may seem trivial, and do go to electability, but they are valid considerations when we are talking about winning a necessary and vital election. Man, if only Elizabeth Warren had run.
It is pretty clear that most people vote with their tribe (Democrat or Republican Tribe). The so-called independent voter is mostly a myth – they also usually vote with one tribe or the other.
Currently, the Democratic Tribe controls many more electoral votes than the Republican Tribe, and the Democratic Tribe’s demographic base is growing while the Republican Tribe’s base is shrinking (dying, actually)
Whoever the Democrat Tribe nominates will win the presidency, if it isn’t stolen again like in 2000. The Republican Tribe has only won the majority vote once since 1988.
I feel better.
Ever notice how almost everything Walmart sells has some kind of defect?
As one of those mythological creatures, my default is an experienced pragmatist. My current position is:
Will vote for Clinton if she is nominated
Will not vote for Bernie
Might vote for Trump
Anybody but Cruz
Trump is a pragmatic dealmaker. He does know how to get things done even if he is a bull in a china shop. He has barely spent a dime and he leads the news, polls, and generates all the excitement. He is pretty crafty and has the media wrapped around his finger. I don’t think he can govern, but maybe he can learn. I’m in for Clinton, but she better get the nod is about all I can say.
Saw the 6 planets this morning before sunrise over Rehoboth Bay. Really cool. Incredible day at the beach yesterday.
You don’t get to claim *pragmatism* when you are open to voting for nothing more than white folks fear and xenophobia. That kind of governing puts alot of your neighbors at some risk and validates the worst instincts of the Americans who support this fool. He will learn the way BushCo learned — and leave us all the worse for it. There’s nothing pragmatic about that.
Yeah, you can’t vote for Trump. The man is a Mussolini/Hitler clone, and that’s not hyperbole.
Trump generates the same excitement as Survivor and Real Housewives – as in, what crazy thing will he do next? Let’s all watch and see!
And the idea that he will be able to make deals with Congress is laughable. Trump thinks he’s taken on the big boys all his life. He has no idea what will be waiting for him. Congress will eat him alive, especially when he realizes he can’t say, “You’re fired!”
I have no idea what policies people supporting Trump support (or even what policies Trump supports) – other than what Cassandra pointed out.
And the idea of supporting Trump if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination baffles me. It reminds me of some Hillary 2008 supporters switching to McCain/Palin. This doesn’t strike me as pragmatic. Does policy matter at all?
Policy is anecdotal..
Trump will pivot hard-center if nominated in an attempt to broaden his appeal past wanna be SS members… It will get him labeled as a “race traitor” by most of his supporters.
The funny part is, all the people dumb enough to support him already do. It’s gonna be fun.
“Does policy matter at all?”
Yes policy matters and we have policies up the ying yang, but what we don’t have is execution. Idealists cannot execute because they often so visionary that they cannot see the world we live. I need a realist – someone who recognizes that progress is incremental. When I took more than a cursory look at Sanders’ health care plan, especially the revenue side, it is outlandish and unexecutable. Executability, in my view, has primacy. It’s not just what you say you are going to do, it’s whether or not you can execute it. My view is that Sanders cannot.
Applying the same test to Trump, I’d give him the same failing executability grade of being able to build figurative or literal 1,933 mile wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Trump’s only advantage is that he is willing to compromise because you don’t get ahead in business without doing that. In my view he is a better choice.
Finally, I didn’t say I was supporting Trump, but given that I will not support either Trump or Cruz, my choices would be limited to Trump or staying home.
“You don’t get to claim *pragmatism* when you are open to voting for nothing more than white folks fear and xenophobia.”
Sure I do, because I wouldn’t be voting for that and you well know it. You may certainly claim that’s what it is, but you don’t get to define my reasons nor do you get to pass judgment on what it means if I vote that way.
And since we now have to invoke Godwin’s Law, I’ll close with a thought that I could be wrong about Sanders’ ability to execute or whether he can be elected, but my view is that Cruz is the great threat to our nation. So if it comes down to Sanders vs Cruz, I’m voting for Sanders, but I fervently hope it doesn’t come down to that.
Trump is willing to compromise? where do you get that from? His entire campaign is “I’ll force people to do this”. He sues anyone who looks at him the wrong way…. he raped his own wife, then threatened her with legal action until she recanted the accusation.
Trump compromises in business because it is in his interest to do so. His current brand on the stump is as a fierce non-compromiser. And as long as this entire business is about the Presidency as a reality-TV moment and making sure that white resentments are stoked, why would he compromise?
Yeah, I’m not seeing where the “Trump is willing to compromise” claim is coming from. His entire platform, and behavior, has been, “My way, or the highway.” He’s also extremely sensitive and lashes out frequently.
If your concern with Sanders is that his plans aren’t realistic then I don’t understand why Trump would would be an option.
@Dave: Maybe it’s just my polyanna view of the world, but I can’t say I’m comfortable have an bigoted, misogynistic, nationalistic, xenophobic political neophyte using the Presidency of the United States as his first chance to learn how to “govern”.
The guy’s manner of governing is plainly evident for all of us to see in how he operates other facets of his business life. If you accept that as true, then his ability to govern is shit. Furthermore, personalities like Trump rarely adopt an approach that would allow them to humbly learn.
“Pragmatic dealmaker”? Please point me to the evidence of this because I can’t really see it anywhere, from his time with the USFL all the way to present day.