Where the 2016 race stands today

Just a screenshot of the Huffington Post polling aggregator from Wednesday and a few things that stood out to me:

margins

A few things stood out to me:

  • Clinton’s top line number has a narrow range no matter whta candidate she is paired against (48% to 52%)
  • Biden is doing niether better nor worse than Clinton in terms of margin on the few paired comparisons (Paul, Rubio)
  • Clinton’s margins are tightly clustered against top tier GOP opponents (+7 to +10)
  • Republicans really don’t like Chris Christie as he is running behind Cruz, Huckabee and most likely my pet rock versus Clinton.

Looking at this data, this is basically generic Democrat versus generic Republican.  The Democratic base seems more consolidated and willing to back their candidates while the GOP primary process has people who will eventually vote their partisan allegiance but will need to be wooed.  The woo-ables are probably Republican leaning so we should expect a decent GOP convention bounce.

Secondly, in the GOP race, there is a minimal penalty for being severely conservative, maybe a point or two (Huckabee, Cruz).






117 replies
  1. 1
    chopper says:

    also, generic republican has minimum of about 40%, as has been discussed here numerous times.

  2. 2
    dmsilev says:

    They don’t seem to be tracking Clinton v. Trump. Not enough of a trend line? 20 point gap doesn’t fit on the graph?

  3. 3
    Snarki, child of Loki says:

    Yeah, just too bad for Jebbie that he doesn’t have a brother governing a big swing state.

  4. 4
    Punchy says:

    Why the fuck they even bother with anyone except Jeb($) and BenHillzi is boggling. We’re going to go ~15 months of this shit to get to where everyone and their mistress knows we’re going; Bush v. Clinton. It’s done, set, cemented.

  5. 5
    Amir Khalid says:

    @dmsilev:
    Also, where are Fiorina and Carson? And whatsisname who declared this week?

  6. 6
    boatboy_srq says:

    in the GOP race, there is a minimal penalty for being severely conservative demonstrably wingnutty, maybe a point or two

    Much more accurate. See the numbers for Walker and (especially) Paul.

  7. 7
    MattF says:

    @boatboy_srq: Huckabee, Jindal, Cruz, and Santorum are the Xtian wing. They’re ‘conservative’ in some sense, but are actually clustered along a different axis from Bush, Walker, Rubio, etc.

  8. 8
    dmsilev says:

    @Amir Khalid: Trump _is_ the front runner, so you’d think they’d include him. Look at the summary of the polls for the GOP primary; he’s got the top spot in the last five or so polls, including ones taken after he gave the entire political media a case of the vapors by attacking John McCain.

  9. 9
    someguy says:

    Given changing national demographics, there is no way in hell that the Republicans – any Republican – can win this race. None, zero, zip, nada. The big states with the big electoral votes are in the bag.

    But go ahead, let’s get neurotic over the possibilities for the next 16 months. It’ll be fun.

  10. 10
    boatboy_srq says:

    @MattF: So, despite all their whinging about the US being an Xtian nation, being an Xtian candidate is still a penalty at the ballot box. Whodathunk.

  11. 11
    Randy P says:

    Unfortunately, Republican dirty tricks and dirty ad campaigns seem to have a pretty significant effect. If I want to scare myself, I’ll recall how W’s numbers started high after 9/11, declined steadily into the basement until about this point in the 2004 campaign, and then began a steady climb to within shooting distance of 50% by election time. Close enough that one rigged state (Ohio, and I’ll never be convinced otherwise) could tip the result into the win column.

    The upward trend on Rubio and Cruz in particular is showing that kind of pattern.

    But the demographics have changed, and short of massive vote suppression (which, given them credit, they are working on in state legislatures across the country) I am mostly convinced that we’re still safe and can sleep at night. But there’s no implication that Hillary could just coast. She will definitely need to have a real campaign and do some persuading. Which I am fully confident she is capable of doing.

  12. 12
    Germy Shoemangler says:

    Wingnut internet commenters are “lighting up” the inter-tubes with their news that HRC is toast. Criminal investigations into her emails!

    In their minds they see her in an orange jumpsuit being nudged into a prison bus for “destroying classified documents” or something. They’re not entirely clear on the details.

    But they’re certain she’s toast.

  13. 13
    MattF says:

    @Germy Shoemangler: In fact, HRC seems relatively immune to that kind of thing. She’s been accused of so much bizarre stuff that mundane accusations (misuse of email!) are just everyday occurences.

  14. 14
    rikyrah says:

    thanks for running the numbers.

  15. 15
    Laertes says:

    So who are these people who aren’t interested in a Clinton-Paul race, but suddenly become Clinton voters if she’s running against Paul Ryan? That doesn’t make a bit of sense.

  16. 16
    Jeffro says:

    My extremely unscientific polling of my brother and 2 remaining wingnut friends tells me that they really, really want someone conservative but electable, meaning in practical terms that a) Christie is already off their radar, b) despite being (air quote) “Libertarians”, none of them are for Paul, and c) they all seem to understand that Cruz is just a major league you-know-what.

    They all like Walker, Kaisch, and Rubio, with Jeb! being at the end of their ‘top five’ lists.

  17. 17
    japa21 says:

    OT, Richard. Curious what your thoughts are on the announcement of Anthem and CIGNA joining forces.

  18. 18
    shell says:

    Havent been to Free Republic in a while, so was curious what their take on Trump has been. Well, naturally, theyre all in love with his ;straight talk.; Should have know, over there nearly every Repub politician is a RINO. They yearn for some combination of purity plus red meat and Trump is giving them just that.

  19. 19
    Randy P says:

    Want some more Quantitative Schadenfreude? (I have a nagging feeling that should be a single compound word in German).

    Check out the graphs at this Wonkette article, available on the feed at right under the title New Poll Shows Republicans Starting To Realize They Suck

    Wonkette’s source is this Pew study

  20. 20
    RaflW says:

    @Jeffro: I’ll be a bit pedantic, but then who is 4th for them?

  21. 21
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @shell: Just what I suspected, their Christian piety over there in freepville is skin-deep.

    When the racists go mano a mano with the Christianists, the racists always win.

  22. 22
    shell says:

    that a) Christie is already off their radar, b)

    This always puzzles me. I despise Christie but I do think hes the one that would have any appeal outside of the wingiest in the general election. He comes across as smarter than Jeb! (lately, not difficult) And he has that ;tough talk; glow that they all love about Trump. But heck, why bother with anyone whos remotely electable.

  23. 23
    Samuel Knight says:

    Nice set of graphs.

    In the ball park of looking at the Obama – Romney 2012 numbers and adjusting for demographics which gives the Dems about a 5% edge. With the tough point that the GOP would need a 6% swing in PA or CO which were the tipping point states.

    Which would realistically mean that the GOP strategists know the Presidency is a long shot, but don’t want to get blown out because that could drag the Senate and a lot of House seats with it. (Gerrymandering gets slightly weaker each year further from the census). If the GOP base gets completely discouraged a lot could happen – and the GOP strategists have to do everything to stop that scenario.

    The second thing is – what the heck is going on with those Quinnipac polls? Why is Qunnipac spouting Gravis Marketing-type wacko numbers? Clearly a lot of the commentators (even Josh Marshall who should know better) eat it up. Is it simply gaming the idiots pundits?

  24. 24
    Emma says:

    I don’t care about the polls. I don’t think Hillary is completely cemented in, but I do think she’s the leading Democratic contender. I don’t love any Democratic contender, but I will crawl over broken glass to vote for him/her/it. I don’t care. Those people in the Republican side? Terrifying.

  25. 25
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @shell: Christie embraced Obama for some sweet sweet federal dollars he could grift. You’re supposed to take the federal bucks and then pull a Jan Brewer style snub.

  26. 26
    Chris says:

    @Another Holocene Human:

    Haven’t the Christianists always been a paper-thin cover for the racists in any case? Jerry Falwell starting out in the fifties as a white supremacist preacher telling his congregations that “integration will destroy our race,” Pat Robertson dissing Mandela in the eighties and saying that “one man one vote pure democracy would not be wise,” Bob Jones University waiting until the year 2000 to allow interracial dating… not to mention Paul Weyrich admitting that Jimmy Carter going after all-white “Christian” academies was what triggered the rise of the religious right. I always thought of the religious right as being basically the old segregationist faction with a half-assed makeover.

    It’s not even “Christianists versus racists,” it’s “what they claim to be all about versus what they’re actually all about.”

  27. 27
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @japa21: When I hear “Anthem”, this nightmare fuel comes to mind.

  28. 28
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Chris: Yeah, you’re probably right. It’s just that some of the younger ones get caught up believing the cover story, so you have Erick Erickson flaming out against the rest of the conservative movement over child migrants, and stuff like that.

  29. 29
    Jeffro says:

    @RaflW: Each of them has a different candidate filling out their top five (sorry, didn’t mean to imply they were lockstep Walker-Kaisch-Rubio-____-Bush in terms of preferences, just that they had those 3 guys in common, and Bush is always last on their list of ‘acceptables’

    Not sure I cleared that up, but anyway…

    Of the three, one likes Perry, one likes Jindal(!), and one likes Carson.

    I did find the Walker/Kaisch/Rubio commonality interesting.

  30. 30
    max says:

    Looking at this data, this is basically generic Democrat versus generic Republican.

    Yes, and Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have fucktons of money. So the airwave airwar will be going full-tilt from July to November 2016. Joy. Clinton has an edge, but Bush has the bucks.

    Trump’s the only interesting thing going on (until next year).

    max
    [‘This one’s a snoozefest until the end.’]

  31. 31
    Amir Khalid says:

    @shell:
    I keep hearing about Christie that he’s too Joisey to have much appeal outside his home state, and that even there he’s not all that popular any more. He’s been curiously unable to get much media attention. He may have caught a bad case of self-perpetuating loser stink.

    Actually, the most recent thing I heard about him is that he switched his favourite-rock-star allegiance from prominent Democrat Bruce Springsteen to prominent Democrat Jon Bon Jovi. This is the kind of publicity his candidacy is reduced to.

  32. 32
    Jeffro says:

    @shell: I think w/ Christie, he is considered a late convert to some conservative issues (being anti-Common Core, for instance) and certainly doesn’t do anything for the religious part of the base. There also seems to be the possibility some sort of other shoe will drop w/ Bridgegate or whatever.

    Why go with that when you can have relatively fresh faces in Walker & Rubio who tow the line on every GOP issue (well, Marco does now anyway) and are solid with both big business interests and the religious wing of the party?

  33. 33
    Jeffro says:

    @max:

    Yes, and Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have fucktons of money.

    You know who else has a ton of money and can lay claim to significant parts of the GOP base? Cruz. I’ll be interested to see what he ends up extorting from the eventual nominee in order to hand over his support.

  34. 34
    Lee says:

    @Randy P:

    Wow those numbers are bad for the Republicans. Like ‘HOLY SHIT’ bad. I wonder how bad are things getting in RNC headquarters?

  35. 35
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Amir Khalid: Christie’s base is “Morning Joe” and the “Today” show. That’s it.

  36. 36

    @chopper: Doesn’t a generic Democrat have a higher number than that?

  37. 37
    KG says:

    @dmsilev: there’s probably just not enough data to plot Clinton v Trump. Trump wasn’t included in many polls until he actually declared. As for Carson and Fiorina, it’s probably something similar. Not many polls showing them against Clinton – which is somewhat surprising re Carson since he seems to be polling fairly well, and not at all surprising with Fiorina

  38. 38

    @Amir Khalid:

    Actually, the most recent thing I heard about him is that he switched his favourite-rock-star allegiance from prominent Democrat Bruce Springsteen to prominent Democrat Jon Bon Jovi. This is the kind of publicity his candidacy is reduced to.

    This is what he personally is reduced to. Bon Jovi will probably repudiate him during a concert just like The Boss did. Christie is really kind of pitiable now… not enough for me to actually not wish humiliation and disgrace on him, but when it comes to his musical idols, I have to at least feel a little bad about it.

  39. 39
    catclub says:

    @Jeffro:

    and one likes Carson.

    Carson has enough money to go a good long ways. Unlike Cain.

  40. 40
    catclub says:

    @Jeffro: Cruz also leads in Texas. Which is surprising for an asshole. You would expect the more he gets known the less he would be liked ( Giuliani, Christie).

  41. 41
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    OT: Bob Corker, I am told, is the Village’s non-McCain-Graham moderate Republican voice on foreign policy

    Early on, for example, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, complained, “We had a far more comprehensive and rapid inspection program in Iraq. Far more. That certainly didn’t serve us particularly well.”

    So the problem with Iraq was the weapons inspectors who told us Saddam didn’t have nukes. As Jack Donaghy would say, “Good God, Corker!”

  42. 42
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @catclub: I suspect Pokemon has more star power than Jesus these days.

    I want to be
    the very best
    the best there ever waaaaas!

  43. 43
    Amir Khalid says:

    @catclub:
    Probably a case of an Arschloch being popular with his fellow Arschlöcher.

  44. 44
    Fair Economist says:

    @Punchy:

    We’re going to go ~15 months of this shit to get to where everyone and their mistress knows we’re going; Bush v. Clinton. It’s done, set, cemented.

    I think you’re wrong and that Bush has almost no chance. He’s just a gaffe/blunder machine. First there was his horrible mess on whether we should have invaded Iraq and now he wants to end Medicare. There have been some smaller but not insignificant other blunders as well. I think now it’s about who will kill the king, not about the dynastic hand-off.

  45. 45
    jibeaux says:

    I want to talk briefly about this “phase out Medicare” thing Jeb! mentioned and deserves some real pixels. In this plan, if you’re 55+ you keep your Medicare, since you vote reliably and all. If not, it’s “phased out.” We think of Medicare and Social Security sort of an account that we pay into when we’re young, and get it out when we’re old, but that’s not really how it works, right? You pay for the olds when youre young, and when you’re an old, the Youngs pay for you, until the last generation gets the meteor or whatever. So Jeb’s plan is for young people to spend decades paying for the end of life care for Boomers, and get nothing for themselves.
    let’s keep talking about this.

  46. 46
    Amir Khalid says:

    @jibeaux:
    It’s been a Bush family project for at least the past decade, hasn’t it? I seem to recall that W tried something like it.

  47. 47
    Kropadope says:

    @Fair Economist: I’m betting on Walker, but I think his Iran comments already sealed the deal for the general. Hillary may be a hawk, but that shit’s frightening.

  48. 48
    MomSense says:

    @Another Holocene Human:

    Oh you’re my best friend
    In a world we must defend

  49. 49
    Chris says:

    @Fair Economist:

    I thought his Iraq gaffe was survivable; his Medicare gaffe isn’t, though, unless he does some major fucking damage control right the fuck now.

    Republicans have known this since Goldwater; you don’t announce your intention to dismantle the safety net when you’re still running for office. You campaign on bullshit, avoid these issues altogether, and after you’re in office, then you go to work. Even iJeb!’s idiot brother knew that much. If iJeb! is too dumb for that, well, shit, is he asking for trouble.

  50. 50
    RaflW says:

    @Jeffro: Thank you, very clarifying.

    Also, too, Perry/Jindal/Carson, I’d rate all three a (!).

  51. 51
    catclub says:

    @jibeaux: Yep, all those people who paid into medicare from 15 to 45? Tough!
    That will really work well.

    I bet someone who knows about keeping insurance pools large would have something to say about cutting off new entrants into the medicare coverage pool. Medicare will become powerless to negotiate terms well before it is down to zero covered.

  52. 52
    Fair Economist says:

    @Kropadope: I’d bet on Walker too, because the other more electable candidates (Rubio and Kasich) have issues with the base (immigration reform and Obamacare). Even the Republicans will refrain from nominating a neophyte like Carson or a nut like Cruz (never mind Trump, who’s both).

  53. 53
    RaflW says:

    @Lee:

    I wonder how bad are things getting in RNC headquarters?

    They know it’s a shitshow. I would imagine they are pretty demoralized. My crocodile tears for Prince Rebus know no end.

  54. 54
    Chris says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    As I recall, Bush’s big project (like Reagan’s in the early eighties) was privatizing Social Security, not Medicare. He tried that right after his triumphant reelection.

    Gingrich was the one who tried to strangle Medicare, IIRC – wasn’t that what the 1995 shutdown was about?

  55. 55
    dogwood says:

    @Amir Khalid:
    President Obama introduced Christie to Springsteen during Sandy. I guess he’s trying to erase that connection. Obama should arrange a meeting with BonJovi. Then Christie will be forced too declare his allegiance to Meatloaf and Ted Nugent just like the Mitster.

  56. 56
    Fair Economist says:

    @Chris:

    I thought his Iraq gaffe was survivable; his Medicare gaffe isn’t, though, unless he does some major fucking damage control right the fuck now.

    What damage control can he do? “I didn’t understand the question” will work even less well here than with the Iraq gaffe. “No, I didn’t mean ‘end end’ I meant…” is likewise a disaster too. The least bad option is to shut his mouth, change the subject, and count on the compliant press – although I agree with you it’s still curtains.

    Also, too, he’s going to make more gaffes in the future.

  57. 57
    Kay says:

    @jibeaux:

    In 2012 (and admittedly this is anecdotal) I found that the people who were most tuned in to Paul Ryan’s proposal to get rid of Medicare were current recipients or people very close to being current recipients. They simply did not believe they would keep it. I heard it again and again, but only from older people. I think it has to do with what people hear. If you’re 25 Medicare is “blah, blah, blah” but if you’re wholly dependent on this program a politician goes near it and you’re on full alert.

    It makes sense. They understand that the deal is younger people subsidize it- they know it isn’t dollar in/dollar out. They believe younger people will bail on them if there’s no downstream benefit for younger people, if the program is discontinued but for a grandfathered portion.

    It really stuck out to me because I thought “the best defenders of Medicare are 65% GOP”.

    I think politicians and pundits generally over-estimate the capacity for risk-taking among more vulnerable people, and this was yet another example of it.

  58. 58
    Brachiator says:

    @Punchy:

    Why the fuck they even bother with anyone except Jeb($) and BenHillzi is boggling. We’re going to go ~15 months of this shit to get to where everyone and their mistress knows we’re going; Bush v. Clinton. It’s done, set, cemented.

    Right. This stuff is moderately entertaining, and may be of some use to the candidates in crafting their strategy, but otherwise it is pseudo-data of no statistical significance for a lot of reasons.

    Let’s look at the numbers at this point in 2007. Who do you think was in the lead? Maybe Giuliani and Clinton were done, set, cemented? Not quite. Sleepy Fred Thompson was giving theoretical voters theoretical vapors.

    Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, while still not a declared candidate, has edged ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a Harris Interactive Poll released today.

    According to the poll, 29 percent of those who expect to vote in a Republican primary or caucus would vote for Thompson while 28 percent would vote for Giuliani. One percent difference is not statistically significant, according to Harris Interactive.

    On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is still in the lead with 35 percent of those who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus saying they would vote on her. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) polled 28 percent.

    Looking at the next tier of candidates on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) leads the group with 17 percent saying they would vote for him followed by Mitt Romney (9%) and Newt Gingrich (6%).

    Oh, yeah, there is also this:

    Among Democrats, more people say they would consider voting for Hillary Clinton (70%) than for Barack Obama (59%). However, Obama leads Clinton among Independents (by 39% to 31%). Among Republicans, just over half say they would consider voting for Rudy Giuliani (54%) while 43 percent would consider Fred Thompson. Giuliani also leads Thompson among Independents (26% to 19%).

    When we get to the primaries, and not before, you might have something worth talking about. Otherwise, you might as well read tea leaves and sort around in smoking animal entrails for clues, signs and portents.

  59. 59
    Richard Mayhew says:

    @japa21: Still processing mentally on that, as my office is having a very spirited discussion about the big national players consolidating to a smaller but bigger group. Not sure.

  60. 60
    jibeaux says:

    I would say the tough talk on Medicare and SS has been a thing for a while (cost control, etc.) But saying outright “phase out”, with an age attached, is unusually explicit about their intentions.

  61. 61
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Chris: Yup.

    My whole life, I’ve watched people fall for this shit. No, this time it is NOT going to be different!

  62. 62
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Amir Khalid: They’ll put that on Texas’ epitaph.

  63. 63
    Amir Khalid says:

    @dogwood:
    Plus he’s probably still smarting from the Bridgegate smackdown that Bruce laid on him, with Jimmy Fallon’s help.

    Is there no Republican rock star from New Jersey that CC can call his favourite? Meat Loaf is a Texan, and the Nooge a Michigander. (I just had this mental image: Mitt and Anne, of all people, grooving to the Nooge classic Wang Dang Poontang.)

  64. 64
    japa21 says:

    @Richard Mayhew: Discussion here as well. Between the Aetna/Humana deal and this one, 2 companies are going to have something like 80% of the market. And I wonder what the residual impact will be on UHC.

  65. 65
    Lee says:

    I’d place a small bet on Walker being the nominee (but that’s it).

    I think Jeb!’s backers could just outspend the Koch brothers if they decide to back Walker which is why it is only a small bet.

  66. 66
    dogwood says:

    @Chris:
    I also think the Iraq gaffe is survivable. That question is much more complicated for Jeb than the other candidates. The questioner didn’t care about his opinion on Iraq, he was interest in the sibling angle. It was a bad response, but he was going to lose no matter what he said or how well he said it. Plenty of people will give him a pass on that.

  67. 67
    dogwood says:

    @Brachiator:
    Don’t be so hard on Punchy. Last night people were talking about who we would run in 2024.

  68. 68
    cmorenc says:

    @Emma:

    I don’t love any Democratic contender, but I will crawl over broken glass to vote for him/her/it. I don’t care. Those people in the Republican side? Terrifying.

    +1
    …because the core ambition of every GOP candidate in the field is not just to substantially cut back and weaken every progressive institution and aspect of government created since the New Deal, but to burn them down to the ground and make it impossibly difficult for several decades at least to successfully rebuild them (appointing a couple of SCOTUS justices who make Scalia look like a flaming liberal would be very helpful toward that end, as would hamstringing government with crippling tax cuts and immense new war debts that make the cost of Iraq look like pocket change). And that’s BEFORE considering the fact that all of them but perhaps Jeb! and Walker are bug-fuck insane, and Jeb! is corrupt and a bit dense, and Walker is both corrupt and evil, and also before considering the fact that every one of them will pander heavily to the very worst ambitions of the hard-right social conservatives.

  69. 69
    catclub says:

    Plum Line:

    The Latino media has long covered Republican intransigence on immigration and the more strident voices in the GOP very harshly.

    Good news, everyone!

  70. 70
    MattF says:

    OT– but about a candidate. Ted Cruz demonstrates why he doesn’t have a lot of pals in the Senate.

  71. 71
    ruemara says:

    I still believe Sanders has momentum to take the nomination. This does not concern me, as I’m more aligned with Sanders on many issues. But it’s so far out, I think most of the navel gazing is simply something for VSP to do.

  72. 72
    Matt McIrvin says:

    There were just recently some scary headlines about a Quinnipiac poll in which Bush, Walker and Rubio were all winning against Hillary Clinton in Virginia, Iowa and Colorado (all two-time Obama swing states); she had notably bad favorability ratings as well:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

    It’s just one poll, maybe an outlier; I’ll feel more confident about these numbers when there’s some decent aggregation. But could this be a sign that Clinton’s support is concentrated in big blue states?

    I don’t think this is going to be anything other than a real fight.

  73. 73
    Brachiator says:

    @dogwood:

    Don’t be so hard on Punchy. Last night people were talking about who we would run in 2024.

    Yep. You’re right. My note is more a general response to everyone, as much as a reply to Punchy.

    RE: 2024. I would say none of the above. I would hope that there would be a new generation of Democratic Party politicians developed by 2024.

  74. 74
    Amir Khalid says:

    @MattF:
    The story notes that there’s a Senate rule against what Cruz did. That means he’s going to get censured, right?

  75. 75
    Jeffro says:

    @catclub: Carson has $10M…Cruz has $10M + his super PAC raised $47M. He’s 3rd overall behind Jeb! at $117M and Hillary at $69M.

    Cruz helps shore up Jeb!’s bonafides w/ the base in a number of ways and would make an outstanding attack dog as the Veep nominee. Ugh.

  76. 76
    rikyrah says:

    DNC to allow lobbyist money to fund conventions

    Greg Nash

    By Megan R. Wilson – 07/23/15 08:19 PM EDT

    The Democratic National Committee (DNC) says it is “revisiting” its fundraising policies for the 2016 presidential election cycle, and will now accept donations from lobbyists and political action committees to help finance conventions next year.

    The change is a reversal of Obama-led policies….

    http://thehill.com/business-a-.....onventions

  77. 77
    Brachiator says:

    @MattF:

    OT– but about a candidate. Ted Cruz demonstrates why he doesn’t have a lot of pals in the Senate.

    Wow. Cruz must think he’s Donald Trump.

  78. 78
    Jeffro says:

    @MattF: @catclub: I guess as far as the GOP base is concerned, here you have a youngish guy w/ little baggage, title of Senator, appeals to most parts of the base (especially the religious and xenophobic ones). A better-spoken Palin in a suit.

  79. 79
    Jeffro says:

    @MattF: Just more evidence that Cruz is in touch w/ the base…he only helps his standing with them by dinging McConnell.

  80. 80
    ruemara says:

    @rikyrah: Booo. Dislike, intensely.

  81. 81
    Belafon says:

    @Matt McIrvin: Here’s a good Daily Kos diary on that poll: http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....ipiac-poll.

    One big point: She’s still doing really well nationally. In order for her to be performing well nationally but not in the states mentioned, meands she’d have to be seriously overperforming in places like Texas, which we know isn’t going to happen.

  82. 82
    Calouste says:

    @Matt McIrvin: IIRC Quinnipiac used to be a good pollster a number of years back, but they have fallen to the second ranks in recent years. 538 gives them a B+, based on data going back to 1998.

  83. 83
    Jeffro says:

    @RaflW:

    Also, too, Perry/Jindal/Carson, I’d rate all three a (!).

    Good point. I think I emphasized that one without thinking b/c that’s my brother’s “4th choice” and he oughta know better!

  84. 84
    Belafon says:

    @ruemara: Not entirely fond of either, but Obama didn’t have to operate under the CU decision like they will this cycle. The Super Secret PAC decision is really going to mess things up.

    Now, there could be an argument for diminishing returns, but if the money keeps getting used like Clinton is for setting up field operations and canvassers, there could be a benefit.

  85. 85
    KG says:

    @Jeffro:

    I guess as far as the GOP base is concerned, here you have a youngish guy w/ little baggage, title of Senator

    I’m sure the reasoning is somewhere along the lines of: IT WERKT FOR THE demoRATS!

  86. 86

    Aren’t the polls pretty much meaningless right now? Weren’t Giuliani and Clinton frontrunners at the same juncture about 8 years ago.

  87. 87
    ruemara says:

    @Belafon: True, but, I’m allowed to prickle over the beholding that will go on.

  88. 88
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    At this point, every poll is just a Pavlovian name recognition contest.

  89. 89
    Seanly says:

    But, but, but Quinnapacc sez she’s gonna lose Iowa to any Republican who can draw breathe!!! Inpeech! Benghazi email server!

  90. 90
    Betty Cracker says:

    @rikyrah: From your link:

    “At this time the DNC will continue its policy of not accepting donations from political action committees and lobbyists for its general fundraising operations,” said DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman in an email. “The DNC will continue to review and update its policies looking ahead to 2016.”

    Now is a great time to email the DNC and tell them why you think this is a bad, tone-deaf move. Off to do so myself!

  91. 91
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Jeffro:
    Not pissing people off needlessly is supposed to be a basic political life skill. I’m surprised that Ted Cruz got into the US Senate without mastering it.

  92. 92
    Trentrunner says:

    NBC’s John Harwood just tweeted, re Hillary’s “criminal” email investigation story at NYT:

    Justice Dept official says “referral” related to Hillary Clinton’s email is NOT for a criminal investigation – contradicting earlier reports

    So to recap:

    The New York Times publishes a story saying that the inspector general recommends a “criminal” investigation of Hillary related to her emails.

    Turns out that Hillary is NOT the target, and that the investigation is not for “criminal” activity.

    Other than that, bang-up job, NYT.

  93. 93
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: On the Democratic side, the major players were pretty clear by the summer of 2007, though Hillary Clinton was leading Obama… and some of the polls still included Gore as a major hypothetical, kind of like Biden now:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

    But Hillary was not nearly as dominant in the primary race as she is this time around.

    On the Republican side, yeah, Giuliani and Fred Thompson were getting most of the attention, with McCain and Mitt Romney and maybe Newt Gingrich in the second tier:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

  94. 94
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    Not pissing people off needlessly is supposed to be a basic political life skill. I’m surprised that Ted Cruz got into the US Senate without mastering it.

    On the contrary, Ted Cruz’s whole life since age 18 at least has been dedicated to the proposition of pissing people off in as large numbers as humanly possible.

  95. 95
    Tommy says:

    I know this isn’t an open thread, but wonder when and if one will go up this afternoon :).

    With that said anybody here have the Samsung Galaxy Edge 6?

    I know I’ve asked about cell phones here before and I got some great input, but never used it because I flat out love my Samsung Galaxy Note II and can’t seem to bring myself to get rid of it.

    Almost three years old but not found an app it won’t run. Maybe crashed twice this year and I am often running Plume/Hootsuite, Evernote, Todoist, and some other pretty memory/processor intensive programs.

    But I joke to people it is one of the top five consumer electronic products I’ve ever bought, and I bought more than I care to admit.

    Like my Sony DVD player from 1985 that still works and I use. My Mac SE from 1987 that still works. My Apple Powerbook from like 1998 that still works. And finally my Nintendo 64 from 1996 that I still use so frequently I ordered a new controller the other day.

    But the Note II came in two sizes and that is a problem. My Northface vest and winter coat I got last year have cell phone pockets, it won’t fit if it is in my Otter case (really tight without the case). The mountain bike bag I bought that sits on the center bar, with a clear pocket on the top for your phone I could use/see when riding and running MapMyRide, won’t fit. The “money belt” like thing I bought to use when I hike and/or walk, won’t fit.

    Long winded way of saying I want a much smaller phone.

    Second, it has that stock ticker like display on the side. I get a ton of alerts through my phone just for me, but do some social media for clients so I get a ton more. My phone is beeping 24/7 and this may sound so dumb, but I hate having to pick up my phone a hundred or more times a day to check the alert. Rather just set it lay on its side and look over at the ticker when I get an alert. Yeah I am lazy like that.

    So with that background out of the way anybody here have a Samsung Galaxy Edge 6 and what do you think about it?

  96. 96
    Matt McIrvin says:

    …the 2012 Republican primary polling is an interesting one: in mid-2011, Mitt Romney was well in the lead, but most of the various clown-car boomlets (Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum) came after that (Michele Bachmann’s had been earlier). Santorum was probably the most serious threat to Romney of the lot.

  97. 97
    Brachiator says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Aren’t the polls pretty much meaningless right now? Weren’t Giuliani and Clinton frontrunners at the same juncture about 8 years ago.

    Yep. These early polls are absolutely meaningless. I posted above here that at this point in 2007, Fred Thompson was the GOP favorite, polling just a little higher than Rudy G, and Hillary was the stone cold lock of the Democrats.

    There was this:

    Among Democrats, more people say they would consider voting for Hillary Clinton (70%) than for Barack Obama (59%). However, Obama leads Clinton among Independents (by 39% to 31%). Among Republicans, just over half say they would consider voting for Rudy Giuliani (54%) while 43 percent would consider Fred Thompson. Giuliani also leads Thompson among Independents (26% to 19%).

    But these days everyone wants to be 538.

  98. 98
    Brachiator says:

    @Tommy: Could you get the same desired amount of notifications with an Android watch to go along with whatever phone you wanted? Would more information be viewable?

    By the way, I don’t have a phone or a smart watch, so I cannot be of help about the Samsung device, but just wanted to ask what you really needed with respect to notifications.

  99. 99
    Tommy says:

    @Brachiator: Maybe. I do have one of the fitness bracelets. I won’t get in the weeds. But I have a Samsung phone, tablet, and Chromebook/laptop. All the apps I use for work and in my personal life have either an Andriod app, Google Chrome browser extension, or standalone app for my desktop.

    So my to-do-list, note taking, shopping list, social media, you name it all run across and sync with everything. Not sure a watch could do this nor something I’d want since I have a $550 Casio sports/scuba watch that I might not have taken off my wrist more than a handful of times this entire year.

  100. 100
    Mike J says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    On the contrary, Ted Cruz’s whole life since age 18 at least has been dedicated to the proposition of pissing people off in as large numbers as humanly possible.

    A lot of people have swallowed the idea that believing in something is the most important thing. Stand up for what you believe in, and if people disagree with you, never back down. Just stick with what you believe in.

    Sadly, they don’t really care what it is they believe, and they won’t listen to logic or reason because it would get in the way of believing stuff.

  101. 101

    @Tommy: I have a MotoG and am pretty happy with it. I have no idea how it compares to Samsung.

  102. 102
    Tommy says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: It might have been you but a number of other people also suggested the MotoG phone and honestly the specs are better than the Samsung I am looking at. Also less expensive. The camera might the best of any phone including the iPhone.

    And since they are both Andriod I don’t think it will matter, but I am brand loyal and also since my tablet and Chromebook are both Samsung I want to keep them all in the same “family.”

  103. 103
    Jeffro says:

    @Mike J: The thing is, from everything I’ve read about him, Cruz doesn’t do it just to do it – he pisses people off to a) make the right enemies and/or b) make the point he wants to make, all in the service of c) advancing Ted Cruz.

    His blithe disregard for the facts (and encourage the same w/ his base) + his ability to always, always stay on the offensive are quite remarkable. I can’t see him swinging the nomination but I can certainly see him conniving, demagoguing, and outright extorting his way to the Veep slot.

  104. 104
    Barney says:

    The one comparison that would actually be interesting, to the point of being useful, even, would be Sanders v. leading Republicans. Is it true that he’d drive off enough independents to be unelectable, or would it still be a viable nomination?

    But the polling companies don’t bother, and go with the undeclared-and-very-similar-to-Hillary Biden, instead.

  105. 105
    Brachiator says:

    @Tommy:

    It might have been you but a number of other people also suggested the MotoG phone and honestly the specs are better than the Samsung I am looking at. Also less expensive. The camera might the best of any phone including the iPhone.

    There may be an announcement about a new version of the Moto G on July 28. You might also take a look at an upcoming enhancement to the HTC Desire.

    And since they are both Andriod I don’t think it will matter, but I am brand loyal and also since my tablet and Chromebook are both Samsung I want to keep them all in the same “family.”

    Interesting. One of the things about Android was that it supposedly allowed people to be more brand agnostic. And the Moto phones were almost “pure” Android phones, which some users view more highly than brand “family.” Google deliberately sought to have Chromebooks be somewhat generic, and I don’t think there is anything in a Samsung Chromebook that would work differently than an HTC Chromebook when matched with a Samsung tablet.

    But whatever works for you is what’s best. By comparison, I currently have a Toshiba Chromebook, a Nexus 7 tablet, and a MotoG phone (and a Windows PC at work), and have no complaints.

  106. 106
    Tommy says:

    @Jeffro: For many years I was taught don’t give up, don’t back down. Fight!

    I had no filter. I said what I thought whenever I wanted. This went on more than a decade into my business life. I only kept my jobs in hindsight because (1) I usually said what my boss wanted to say but couldn’t and (2) I was damn good at my job.

    This caused a ton of conflict in my life. I was always fighting ….

    At second to last job before I started working for myself my boss (the owner) pulled me into her office after working for her a few months.

    She said something along the lines of:

    You seem to always have a sword in each hand. Starting fights you don’t need to start, Fending off the people you pissed off 24/7. You are so good at figuring out a person’s pressure points and then hitting them on them again, and again, and again.

    You are starting fights where you don’t have to start fights.

    You are right almost all the time, otherwise I would have fired you, but you need to figure out how to persuade people to come to your side by talking with them and not pounding them into the ground.

    You will create allies instead of enemies.

    You will be happier.

    You will live longer.

    I lightbulb went off. Almost overnight I changed how I interacted with people. In fact so much it caused me to get fired from my last job because I refused to fight like my boss wanted.

    I would say I was sorry and he told me to stop it, it was a sign of weakness. I told him no not admitting you were wrong, when you and everybody knew you were wrong, that is a sign of weakness.

  107. 107
    Tree With Water says:

    A common sense observation- and favorite quote of mine- by Abraham Lincoln serves to explain my dismissal of long term political prognostications: “Men are not flattered by being shown there is difference of purpose between the almighty and them”. A lot of things can happen between now and November, 2016.

    And Ted Cruz just called Mitch McConnell a liar on the floor of the senate. To quote Stonewall Jackson on the eve of his flank march at Chancellorsville, “Delicious excitement”.

  108. 108
    Lee says:

    @Tommy:

    I do not have it, but I was also intrigued by the edge notifications. That seems very handy.

  109. 109
    Tommy says:

    @Brachiator: It is more the brand loyal thing. It would take pages to explain.

    BTW: How do you like your Nexus tablet? I had the first gen version. First tablet I had and loved it. Got me hooked. I hvae about 750 books in my house. And although a total nerd, said I’d never read a book on a tablet. Nexus got me doing that and not bought a “physical” book in 2.5 years.

    But it didn’t age well. Still runs of course. Sat in a closet for about a year until a saw an article. No clue why I never thought to do this. But turned it into a wireless/strreaming photo frame.

  110. 110
    Tommy says:

    @Lee: A smaller phone is far secondary to the edge notifications. I am an Otter case guy with my phone and tablet. So worse case I can always, do what I do now when I am on my bike, walk, or hike, just snap the case into the belt clip.

    It would be nice the cloths I’ve sent a small fortune on would work with the phone, but I am more worried my phone works by itself them my cloths and phone work together :).

  111. 111
    PlanetPundit (used to be Sir Laffs-a-Lot) says:

    Does your pet rock have a name?

  112. 112
    Lee says:

    @Tommy:

    FWIW I have a Moto X 2014 and I love it. Some of the latest updates to Android have really impressed me with their usability.

    I have the 10 inch Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 and I have hardly used it since getting my Moto X. I was less than impressed with Samsung’s support for the tablet so I have not tried their phones.

  113. 113
    Brachiator says:

    @Tommy:

    It is more the brand loyal thing. It would take pages to explain.

    Sounds interesting. As I said, especially with respect to Chromebooks, I cannot see any significant difference between most brands with the same features. But your mileage may vary.

    BTW: How do you like your Nexus tablet? I had the first gen version. First tablet I had and loved it. Got me hooked. I hvae about 750 books in my house. And although a total nerd, said I’d never read a book on a tablet. Nexus got me doing that and not bought a “physical” book in 2.5 years.

    I had a first gen iPad and went through an economic patch where I could not justify updating it, even though I still use it at home. The Nexus 7 (second gen) is great for me as a commuting device. I use it for reading, for podcasts, and for some writing and reviewing work related documents. I’ve even used it as a phone (WiFi and Google Voice and Hangouts). I actually use it more than my smartphone, because I like the larger screen. For me a tablet with a 7 to 8 inch screen is almost perfect for transportability and general use.

    My home laptop died and the Toshiba Chromebook is a good substitute until I decide on a replacement. The screen is wonderful and the keyboard tolerable.

  114. 114
    mclaren says:

    Secondly, in the GOP race, there is a minimal penalty for being severely conservative insane, maybe a point or two (Huckabee, Cruz).

    There. Fixed that for ya.

  115. 115
    mclaren says:

    @shell:

    I despise Christie but I do think hes the one that would have any appeal outside of the wingiest in the general election.

    No, this one I completely understand. Christie’s f***-you-buddy-I-got-your-politics-right-here(clutches his own balls) attitude does not go down well outside of the New Jersey-Connecticut-New York region. That kind of in-your-face belligerence comes off as tough and urban and alpha-male top-dog in the central Northeast, but in the rest of the country it makes Christie look like a crude swaggeringly arrogant narcissistically entitled bully.

    @cmorenc:

    And that’s BEFORE considering the fact that all of [the Republican presidential candidates] but perhaps Jeb! and Walker are bug-fuck insane…

    I think we have to include Jeb in the “bugfuck insane” group at this point. Jeb has said that he would still have invaded Iraq even if he’d known there were no WMDs, and just recently he said “we need to phase out medicare.”

    There seems very little way to describe these policy positions other than “bugfuck insane.” These kinds of policies belong to the same category as “let’s publicly impale small infants” and “we all need to start hitting ourselves on the forehead with ball peen hammers more often.”

  116. 116
    Matt McIrvin says:

    The questions they choose to ask in these head-to-head polls are bizarre. Not only is there no polling about Sanders vs. anybody (as Barney noted), they seem much more interested in how Clinton would do vs. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee than about Walker or Rubio.

  117. 117
    mclaren says:

    @Brachiator:

    Yep. These early polls are absolutely meaningless.

    Permit me to disagree, and offer some cogent explanations why.

    First, 2015 is very different from 2007. In 2007, people were wary of the Clintons in a way they aren’t today. Hillary hadn’t built up the beltway cred she has today courtesy of serving as a Secretary of State. Back in 2007, HRC was just “the wife of that guy who got impeached for giving a girl a blowjob in the Oval Office.” Today, she’s a respected foreign policy wonk and Washington insider. (Being the first lady doesn’t make you a Washington insider. You’re not taken seriously by the villagers as a policy person. A first lady is, at best, considered ornamental, and the kind of coverage she gets is of the “isn’t-it-nice-that-she’s-doing-that-charity-benefit!” variety.)

    Second, there was a sense of weariness in 2007 with the beltway status quo. Democrats were openly talking about how sick they were of two political dynasties going head-to-head. Today there’s such fear of the Bush crime family among liberals that anyone and anything is considered preferable to another Bush in the White House.

    Third, back in 2007 the tide had decisively turned against the Repubs in the House and senate, so it was correctly considered much less important which Democrat occupied the White House. The Demo-dominated senate and House could take the slack if needed. Today, by contrast, Repubs once again control both the House and the senate, and adding a Republican president to that mix opens up the prospect of such a nightmarish rollback of basic programs like medicare (which Jeb has openly said he wants to “phase out”) and social security that Demos are much more concerned with the palatability of the 2016 Democratic candidate to the general public. Everyone realizes today that we simply don’t have the luxury of nominating a completely unknown quantity like a Barack Obama. Back in 2007, the dominant mood (in the midst of the Global War on Terror) was “time for a change.” Today, the dominant mood is “time for competence and credentials.”

    Hillary has been preparing for 2016 for a long time. Compared to 2007, she’s enormously far ahead of the game. In 2015 she’s got a huge war chest, she’s got the blessings of the entire Demo establishment, she’s lined up endorsements from everyone who’s anyone, she’s collected a stellar policy team and she’s even issuing substantive policy white papers with real depth. Sanders, likewise, is tapping into a huge dissatisfaction with the economic status quo, and he’s speaking a lot of leftish policy wonks who have been advocating simple policy solutions that the beltway insiders absolutely will not discuss: massive infrastructure investment, ending the misbegotten Global War On Terror, ending corporate personhood, shutting down the lobbyist revolving door, slashing military spending, moving aggressively toward single-payer health care, and so on. Love him or hate him, Sanders is saying a lot of things that policy wonks like Krugman and deLong and Noah Smith and Ezra Klein have been saying for years. 2015 is not a transitional period like 2007, when people were sick of the Bush-era policies but unsure where to go. Today, the way forward seems clear — we need to end our endless unwinnable wars, cut back our military & national security spending, focus on rebuilding infrastructure and the economy, reduce inequality, re-regulate the banks and financial markets, hike taxes on the rich, make higher education affordable, restore the middle class to economic viability. The only reason issue among Democrats is: which candidate can most effectively push these policies forward? In 2007, there was real serious debate about which policies we needed. People were still stuck in a 9/11 mindset. Should we get out of Iraq or not? There was serious debate about that among Democrats in 2007. Today, everyone in the Democratic party recognizes that these endless unwinnable wars are pointless and haven’t accomplished anything. In 2007 we hadn’t been mired in Afghanistan for 14 years with no progress to show for it. Back in 2007, General Betray-us was still telling convincing lies about the alleged effectiveness of his “surge” and bullshit policies like COIN counterinsurgency (which has now been tried, and has failed as definitively as the Maginot Line).

    Recall that in 2008 the Global War On Terror was still rolling along and Faux News was still making hay terrifying everyone with the latest bogus “terrist threat.” Giuliani was a real contender back in 2007 because of his “tough” response to 9/11. Today 9/11 is not an issue in the presidential campaign. Nobody is running on preventing another 9/11. Today, nobody gives a shit about that bogus stuff, compared with real issues like people losing their homes and losing their jobs and America is disintegrating into a Mechanical-Turk-Uber-Lyft-AirB&B part-time below-minimum-wage “task rabbit” economy. So in 2015, the perceived “defense and foreign policy credibility gap” for being a Democrat has declined to about zero compared to 2007.

    All of these factors add up to a radically different political situation in 2015 than in 2006-7. That’s why I would contend that we’re not going to see Democratic candidates leaping into prominence out of nowhere this time around (HRC’s extensively prepared campaign has sucked all the air out of the room), we’re not seeing Republicans able to make credible arguments for continuing the failed and self-destructive Bush policies the way they were back in 2007 (shoot, even Joe Biden was urging everyone to give Iraq “one last shot” back in goddamn 2007) and issues like the War on Drugs and gay-marriage were still hot-button issues back in 2007, whereas they’re pretty much old news today, unlikely to motivate anyone who isn’t already a single-issue voter on those issues. Today, the gay marriage and marijuana legalization issues have been pretty much settled. No presidential candidate will be able to pick up votes by claiming to be able to move the country one way or the other on those issues, because the general public has already decided that gay marriage is basically OK and weed legalization makes sense.

Comments are closed.