These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I think the real voters are unsure of who they will be voting for. They'll wait through all the debates before making a decision. Trump is appealing to people that may or not even vote.
Trump may be leading because he isn't the political insider or lifetime politician. But, when you get down to wanting to know what he would actually do if he were elected president then things get a bit murky. He's going to build a wall at the Mexican border....yeah, right.
Trump is just a flash in the pan. When it comes time to get real about electing a nominee, I think you'll see his popularity fade in a hurry.
I heard this morning that a lot of supporters in Iowa like him because of his brashness. It's nothing about actual policy. They just think we need the President to be a bully.
I still don't think Trump is serious about this. He's getting a ton of publicity, which is something Trump craves. In the end, I don't think he'll be willing to step down from his business empire for 4-8 years.
I heard this morning that a lot of supporters in Iowa like him because of his brashness. It's nothing about actual policy. They just think we need the President to be a bully.
I still don't think Trump is serious about this. He's getting a ton of publicity, which is something Trump craves. In the end, I don't think he'll be willing to step down from his business empire for 4-8 years.
So, the rest of the candidates explain in detail their policies?
Part of me thinks Trump is a joke, part of me fears he will win because people of sick of politics as usual.
A virtual political lifetime.
Policy is important, but, on the R side at least, we had Senators and Reps run on specific policy and then do the complete opposite when they get into office. I think people like Trump's attitude (anti-establishment politics) and don't care that much about specific policies.
I also think this could be the year that a 3rd party candidate has a legitimate shot at the Presidency. It probably won't happen, but I could see Bloomberg or Elizabeth Warren making a successful run at the White House if Hillary and/or Bush fail to win their party's nomination because they aren't extreme enough for those who vote in the primaries.
For example, he's saying Hedge Funds should pay the same taxes as everyone else. I'd bet 99% of America believes that but no Republican will say it since Hedge Funds are among their biggest donors.
In these instances Trump is taking real positions that voters will like and they're positions only he can take. If you think he doesn't have a strategy or isn't in it for the long run you're sorely mistaken.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
For example, he's saying Hedge Funds should pay the same taxes as everyone else. I'd bet 99% of America believes that but no Republican will say it since Hedge Funds are among their biggest donors.
I think 99% of American doesn't even know what a hedge fund is.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
but Carson is by far the smartest candidate. Would like to see him as a running mate
Really, 2008's run with Obama is the only time in the modern era that there was an "upset" - and that "upset" involved a rather moderate candidate who was clearly being primed for the big stage prior to 2008, likely elevating himself earlier than the DNC machine had projected and winning before when they thought he could. And even then, Obama's understanding of the delegate game and having an unmatched ground game (that Clinton no owns) allowed him to narrowly edge out Clinton - who actually had more votes (though some shenanigans in place like Michigan impact that).
Bernie Sanders' current run projects to John Edwards in 2008, not President Obama's. He doesn't have the money, support of the DNC, nor mass appeal/appeal outside of the predominantly white Iowa/New Hampshire (he's polling at about 4% with African Americans right now). Add in the fact that Clinton is leading the current pledged delegates to the tune of ~300 to nothing and its kind of clear only she is going to take herself out.
That Hillary Clinton has the appeal of a gas station bathroom likely compounds things, but that this is a competitive race on the D's side is much more a narrative that sells stories and gets clicks than anything grounded in reality. The only real litmus test for her viability as a candidate is where Joe Biden stands on announcing/not announcing. Otherwise Bernie gets NH narrowly, puts up a valiant effort in Iowa and gets slaughtered when the voters turning out don't look like an Eddie Bauer catalog shoot.
On the Republican side, I know there was a Trump thread where this was dissected every which way, but he'll fade quickly once he's forced to do more than produce easily consumable soundbites. Similar to the Democrats, you can see the fringe Republican candidates who made noise and had strong polling in Iowa/NH ahead of the vote, but faded once things got "real" and people weren't clicking "Like" on Facebook (or the equivalent). Pat Robertson hit ~25-30% in Iowa in '88, Huckabee was in the mid-30s in '08, etc. There's a precedent for this kind of thing and Trump is pretty much following the standard trajectory. That he's even more recognizable and is a lightning rod for attention/controversy amplifies things a bit, but uncharted territory this is not.
Maybe it is wishful thinking, but this whole election stuff (at least in the US) seems to have a pretty predictable pattern on things. We're in the low-information stage right now and things will even out when people start tuning in for more than a quick hit piece. If nothing else, lack of strategy/ground game and a Republican party that will do everything in its power to deny Trump a place on the ticket will eventually end this - and I don't see him running 3rd party, as I think attention is his end-game not the presidency (and eventually he'll hit a threshold of spending he doesn't want to exceed when his attention has already hit maximum levels).
Trump - cannot believe he is doing this well.
Sanders way too far to the left.
Sanders versus Trump - which end of that shit sandwich do you want to bite off?
Bernie Sanders' current run projects to John Edwards in 2008, not President Obama's.
Actually, IMHO, it's closer to Gene McCarthy in '68 than Edwards who was a political insider (besides being one of the sleaziest candidates in recent history) in 2008.
Quote:
midgets.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
but Carson is by far the smartest candidate. Would like to see him as a running mate
Not the most mensa-esque crew.
He's smart enough to have basically no policy ideas and instead push platitudes. I'll give him that.
Quote:
Bernie Sanders' current run projects to John Edwards in 2008, not President Obama's.
Actually, IMHO, it's closer to Gene McCarthy in '68 than Edwards who was a political insider (besides being one of the sleaziest candidates in recent history) in 2008.
Fair, though there's a near-obsession of calling back to 2008's election (due to Clinton's epic fall) - so its easier to compare to that race than one 50 years ago to draw parallels.
In reality, you can call out to Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. - Sanders is not a unique story, he's the most recent entry to fit the far-left progressive candidate that rolls out each election, fires up the progressive base and gracefully bow out after making early noise.
2 - the people of this country are horrified about the amount of money in our politics. Republicans are 91% unsatisfied or mad as hell on this, and the Dems are 94%. To me this is biggest easily fixable issue facing the country right now. Not easy because the solutions are easy, but easy because there is broad based support for a new approach. Now we did get some change thru congress but 5 activist votes on the US Supreme Court struck that change down, and then overruled the OLD campaign finance precedents. But it can be done.
2 - the people of this country are horrified about the amount of money in our politics. Republicans are 91% unsatisfied or mad as hell on this, and the Dems are 94%. To me this is biggest easily fixable issue facing the country right now. Not easy because the solutions are easy, but easy because there is broad based support for a new approach. Now we did get some change thru congress but 5 activist votes on the US Supreme Court struck that change down, and then overruled the OLD campaign finance precedents. But it can be done.
The "activists" represent an almost absolutist understanding of the First Amendment that does not seem to trouble us in most of its other manifestations.
Quote:
1 - just how strong the anti-establishment vibe is in the GOP electorate
2 - the people of this country are horrified about the amount of money in our politics. Republicans are 91% unsatisfied or mad as hell on this, and the Dems are 94%. To me this is biggest easily fixable issue facing the country right now. Not easy because the solutions are easy, but easy because there is broad based support for a new approach. Now we did get some change thru congress but 5 activist votes on the US Supreme Court struck that change down, and then overruled the OLD campaign finance precedents. But it can be done.
The "activists" represent an almost absolutist understanding of the First Amendment that does not seem to trouble us in most of its other manifestations.
Dunedin, FTW
Call me when Roberts invalidates the anti-child porn laws. That's what a real absolutist would do. Until then he has just decided to drawn the line in favor of unrestrained campaign spending and the most narrow conception of corruption imaginable (effectively, express proven quid pro quo only).
And in any event, principled or not it is still activism. The conservative wing of the US Supreme Court (particularly Scalia-Thomas-Alito) routinely substitute their judgment for that of a co-equal branch of government. You can defend their decisions (though it's a tough slog for the most part), but you cant deny the deep activism on their side.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
Carson is hardly a "lightweight" - he is a world-renowned neurosurgeon - but he is not qualified to be president, imho. If he is serious about wanting to be president, I think he should run for and win a lesser office first. His home state of Maryland for governor or Senator, for instance. When Michael Steele, a no one next to Carson, ran for Senate, he got something like 25% of the black vote in Maryland. Carson could and probably would do better.
Call me when Roberts invalidates the anti-child porn laws. That's what a real absolutist would do. Until then he has just decided to drawn the line in favor of unrestrained campaign spending and the most narrow conception of corruption imaginable (effectively, express proven quid pro quo only).
And in any event, principled or not it is still activism. The conservative wing of the US Supreme Court (particularly Scalia-Thomas-Alito) routinely substitute their judgment for that of a co-equal branch of government. You can defend their decisions (though it's a tough slog for the most part), but you cant deny the deep activism on their side.
But the "wise Latina," who thinks we should decide cases based on who the litigants are, is fair and dispassionate?
Disrespecting a co-equal branch of government? The opinions of this "activist" wing you decry are based on reason, history, and an attempt to discern original intent of the people who actually wrote the document. The "Living Constitution" theory of jurisprudence, on the other hand, could be summarized by saying, "I am going to back into the result I want by inventing any crackpot theory I can imagine." Have you ever actually read Roe v. Wade, for instance? I remember going into law school thinking that it was going to be a grand, carefully thought out, well-reasoned opinion. Instead, it was a total power play that could be summarized as, "we have the power to do this, and so we're doing it."
The "Living Constitution" wing is the one who is a real threat to our country. They would read a specifically enumerated right in the Bill of Rights out of the document (the 2nd Amendment, and increasingly the 1st) and yet routinely discern penumbral and other highly dubious rights to further their own political preferences.
Quote:
midgets.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
Carson is hardly a "lightweight" - he is a world-renowned neurosurgeon - but he is not qualified to be president, imho. If he is serious about wanting to be president, I think he should run for and win a lesser office first. His home state of Maryland for governor or Senator, for instance. When Michael Steele, a no one next to Carson, ran for Senate, he got something like 25% of the black vote in Maryland. Carson could and probably would do better.
I'm not sizing up his skills in neurosurgery. He's a lightweight and even on that dais of dunces they had in the first debate, he was a lightweight there, too. Go to his website and read his one or two sentence positions on the issues. There's nothing there. It appears his campaign is basically, "Vote for me, I'm a super polite black conservative with no political record." As was eluded to, he probably is basically running for Vice President.
Please explain how that fits into the original intent of founders.
Please explain how that fits into the original intent of founders.
They are entities made up of a group of people. And the money is to 'speak' about their political choice.
I find it hilarious that only when conservative groups sued for the right for political speech that liberals are in a snit about it. As if they haven't been getting money from unions forever.
Hmm, what happened after the last government shut down?
Quote:
and corporations are people?
Please explain how that fits into the original intent of founders.
They are entities made up of a group of people. And the money is to 'speak' about their political choice.
I find it hilarious that only when conservative groups sued for the right for political speech that liberals are in a snit about it. As if they haven't been getting money from unions forever.
A typical and yet fundamental and complete misunderstanding of the issues that come out of C.U. decision.
And in any event, principled or not it is still activism. The conservative wing of the US Supreme Court (particularly Scalia-Thomas-Alito) routinely substitute their judgment for that of a co-equal branch of government. You can defend their decisions (though it's a tough slog for the most part), but you cant deny the deep activism on their side.
Seriously? The conservative wing does this? That's a laugh.
Hm, how did Dole, McCain and Romney do???
She's never going to be thrown in jail or maybe not even indicted (see Gen Petreaus). But it is political hard ball, just like Clinton calling Repubs terrorists for talking about defunding abortions at PP...
I'll be embarrassed if she gets the nomination. People may not like President Obama's agenda, but I don't think anybody would ever say he was dishonest or purposely untrustworthy. I just cannot see anything positive that she brings to the table, except for the Democrats that she is a Democrat.
Walker is neither a moderate nor strong. Fiorina's reputation as an executive and her lack of political experience won't work in a general election.
I guess that leaves Rubio and Kasich. Rubio doesn't impress me much; Kasich does, but his 7 years at Lehman may be an impediment. I also wonder whether he can build momentum. A breathtaking speaker he ain't. But he best fits the definition of a "strong moderate," I think.
His views linked. That's a pretty good site, btw.
Link - ( New Window )
And a strong moderate would help with independents by countering the perception that the Republican Party has moved too far right in a country edging more center/left at the national level on social issues.
Link - ( New Window )