Agreed. Romney, for all his seemingly unlimited flaws, never even came close to the sort of rhetoric we’re hearing from even the most “moderate” on the GOP side. “Self-deportation” sounds so antiquated and mild, almost compassionate in comparison to the bile spewing from the current crop.
Also, I can’t think of more than one or two of the then ultra-conservative positions Romney took in the primary in 2012 that aren’t currently far to the left of the top 5 GOP contenders. Even then, Romney’s attempt to pivot to the middle was awkward and suspicious and drew anger from his base. So, I find it impossible to believe that candidates who’ve run primaries far and away to the right of him, candidates who on a daily basis make comments that are exponentially more offensive than the worst that came out of his mouth (including 47%), are somehow going to be able to gracefully move to the middle. It’s a move even a man who spent his entire life steeped in politics struggled to pull off convincingly.
One of the biggest reasons Trump and Cruz’s voters are so stridently loyal to their respective candidate is precisely because they don’t believe either man will Etch-A-Sketch, they believe they’ll stay true to their batshit, idiotic principles. The promise of unflinching loyalty to their beliefs is pretty much the driving force behind their campaigns, so unlike Rubio or Bush and Romney before them, Trump and Cruz are much more tightly bound to their primary rhetoric. They can’t turn to the middle without a significant risk of being exposed as opportunists to potential voters while being seen as charlatans and traitors by their base.
But think of the clicks and all the bloviatiors who can spin the results until the next poll emerges! Think of all the unnamed assistants to same bloviators who do their research and write their copy! Think of the familys these unnamed assistants support - the children, the grandparents!! Rejoice and be glad in the polls, they are marvelous in our sight!!!
The crowing reports that Hillary has already sewed up the super-delegates and the DNC leadership stylings of DWS provide evidence enow “that there is some sort of conspiracy to hand HRC the nod”. We don’t need no stinkin’ polls! It’s her party; we just vote in it.
In fairness, for politician that get elected, a big part of analysis on any event is how do the voters feel/think? As it should be. And dialogue between even the constituents of a House district, given how huge they have become, and the politician is extremely limited at best.
That being said, @jw1 got it right…national polls are meaningless; that isn’t how we elect presidents or choose nominees. Its a state by state process. I would far rather see polls being done in SC, NV (which has been largely ignored on both sides of the aisle all season), FL, the Super Tuesday states, etc. Instead we are mostly only polling Iowa, NH and nationally…and only IA and NH have an meaning.
While I agree for the most part, there are at least two ways in which national polls aren’t entirely meaningless. First, to the extent that they are accurate, they involve voters somewhere moving toward one camp or another – and that “somewhere” is by definition in some state. So they indicate there is some movement happening somewhere, though they don’t tell us where. Secondly, the national polls do influence media coverage, which in turn influences voters.
But, again, I agree the state polls are far more important. And with basically no recent polling (at least none I’ve seen reported or listed over at RCP) testing how things may have changed (or not) in Nevada and South Carolina over the last month or so, we’re pretty much in the dark. Would be kind of nice if we at least had some more polls of Nevada and South Carolina before the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, so that the polling we see afterwards can be put in some context.
Frankly I’m a bit surprised at the dearth of polling in South Carolina and Nevada, considering their importance as major, more-diverse states that will take place between NH/IA and Super Tuesday. I would have thought the major pollsters would be all over it.
I think part of this is that we’re still seeing the effects of the conventional wisdom that Bernie has no chance at all, and therefore it’s a waste of resources to worry to much about keeping current on the polling in this race (the same way there were months and months where the pollsters were all testing Biden, who wasn’t even in the race, against various Republicans, while only a few even bothered testing Bernie against the Republicans, and even then only against a couple of them).
However, if Bernie manages to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire, there’s suddenly going to be a lot of interest in polls from Nevada, South Carolina and the upcoming Super Tuesday states.
I read that a while back. And considered it a pretty poor analysis. The GOP is not going to move to the center…their 2016 ticket will be the furthermost to the right since Goldwater and probably more extreme than his platform.
The biggest problem Dems face is complacency, which, while always the case, is amplified because of going for a third Democratic term in a row.
I have been saying I encourage the Sanders supporters to get involved and engage in the process, because historically, people engaged stay engaged even if their candidate loses. But lately, I am second thinking myself.
I like Sanders. I like many of his positions. But his supporters have become a toxic waste dump that is getting close to rivaling the GOP. To hear them tell it, Sander is the Saint before all Saints and shall suffer no criticism on any subject…cheating on database access (GOP behavior), voting to give gun manufacturers immunity(definite GOP behavior), or refusing to release the details on his healthcare proposal that he promised to do (GOP behavior…repeal and replace without ever discussing what you replace it with ring any bells?). And if anyone brings up this issues…then they release some of the nastiness attacks on Hillary and the person raising the questions imaginable. I mean, they got caught cheating and filed a federal lawsuit because apparently they should be able to cheat with no consequences. And even after there were no significant consequences, they still bitched about it!!
We understand more and more that it is the manner in which polls are conducted that lead to outcomes that are not realistic. That would include landline respondents, the growth of cellphones and people being less inclined to participate in a poll. Overriding these flaws is both the frequently slanted nature of the questions and the uninformed voter on the other end. She or he may first be hearing about the candidate from the pollster and has no empirical knowledge of that candidate or the issue but wants to be seen as cooperating with the caller. They may self identify as a “likely” voter but finding the small number of voters who actually will vote becomes more and more difficult.
I agree. Nevada has been ignored almost entirely. But SC, which is decidedly more important than either NH or IA because of A) how it reflect trends in other southern states which make up Super Tuesday and B) the manner in which the divvy up their delegates gives a better indication of how ground games are organized and C) it has almost as many delegates on the GOP side and IA and NH combined. (the Dem side, Iowa has about the same as SC,and not quite twice what NH has)
Maybe we’re just paying attention to different media, but I see an awful lot of the same kind of defensiveness from some of Hillary’s supporters, as in HOW DARE Bernie criticize her Iraq vote or Wall Street connections, or recent hyperbole on health care.
But, I think “this too shall pass.” The way I recall it, the Clinton / Obama race was quite bitter at times, including plenty of outrage by both sides, but in the end, despite the “PUMA” noise, the party came together well enough to deliver a historic victory to Democrats.
I disagree with that entire premise. You are looking at polls as a predictive tool… a quantifiable crystal ball if you will. I look at polls as a snap shot into what is happening at the moment in time.
For example, many people have brought up that Hillary was leading in Iowa polling in the summer and fall of '07, as if that is proof that polls got it wrong. They didn’t Her support was stronger in that time period. And the polling shows how it start slipping away until it was neck and neck and then Obama won. Which is precisely what was happening on the ground…as people learned more and were exposed more to Obama, they switched sides.
To say that the polls got it wrong by not showing Obama winning is a huge disservice to the intensive work that the Obama people did on the ground.
White Socialists are not going to carry the day for us in the general election. In '92, Pat Buchanan led White Nativists into a box canyon that they have yet to exit. (He had lots of help over the years). Bernie’s desire to rearrange government and society from the Oval Office is authentic but it is only a desire.
Yes, and Romney’s failure contributed to the stridency and obstinacy of today’s candidates.
They believed Romney was not conservative enough – which, to them, meant that Romney was too unwilling to get in the mud and issue the most offensive, disgusting rhetoric against President Obama. He was too much of a gentleman to take on Barack “Chicago Thug” Obama.
Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as running mate was an attempt to shore up street cred with conservatives, but unfortunately Ryan proved to be as much of a lightweight on the campaign trail as Rubio. And unfortunately for these preening candidates attempting to posture as the conservative’s choice and champion, conservatism as defined by the “base” now translates to an attitude and a pose, of maximum opposition, resistance, and stridency.
Feel free to correct me, but I think both the Iowa and NH polls have shown very substantial leads for Hillary Clinton among Democrats, but big leads for Bernie among Independents who intend to vote in the caucus/primaries. So, if my recollection is correct, then the various polls may not be that much different after all. And let me add three other bits of data: (1) According to the Selzer Iowa poll, an astounding 46% of those intending to caucus with the Democrats identify themselves as Socialists; (2) As of December 31st, there have been only 500 new Democratic registrants, as opposed to 10,000 for the 2008 caucus. This comes via a post buried at the Daily Kos site; and (3) According to the Selzer poll, Bernie’s vote is highly localized in three Iowa college towns. So, my question is how can these three data points be reconciled? If there are only 500 new Democratic registered voters this cycle, there is no way that 46% of all D caucus goers are Socialists, and it is more than likely that the average age of Democratic caucus goers will be older, and will come from places other than the three college towns. If this is true, then Clinton probably has a pretty big lead. On the other hand, the Selzer poll has an excellent track record. So, other analyses would be welcome.
Maybe so. Because what I see is defenses brought up against those charges…based on the actual charges. I.e. she has admitted the Iraq vote was wrong as an example. By contrast, what I see happening every time with Sanders is over the top indignation/victimhood posturing.
Take the “recent hyperbole on health care”. She raised some valid points…namely that Sanders DID promise to release his plan ahead of the Iowa caucus. And now he isn’t. Refusing to release details that could be debated…after promising to do so…is extremely valid. But instead of debating the issue of his health care plan, they have reacted with complete outrage that she would dare to bring that up.
She raised the issue of pragmatism with regards to going after a single payer plan over the next 4 years…a very valid question. But instead of Sanders people coming forth to say “here is our general strategy for making that happen”…they respond with calling her a right wing plant, a corporate stooge, etc.
The point I am seeing is…that when Hillary gets criticized, they at least address the actual criticism. When Sanders get criticized, Sanders supporters besmirch the criticizer and ignore the actual criticism.
Not really accurate on either count, from my point of view. At this point he’s pointed to the 2013 bill he proposed, and promised to release more details on an updated proposal before Iowa (despite Weaver waffling a bit, the candidate himself made that promise both before and after Weaver’s waffle, so I’m going to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt that he will keep his promise…if he doesn’t, that will be another matter). And “without ever discussing what you will replace it with” is just not the case at all. So, no, I’m not one of those who will brook no criticism of Bernie (ideally he should have released more specifics on his approach to single payer, there are fair questions about a federally-funded but (partly) state-administered single payer program compared to a strictly federal one, he has indeed backtracked on the gun manufacturer liability thing, his foreign policy component remains sketchy, etc.) but it doesn’t follow that I therefore have to agree with every criticism, no matter how exaggerated or misleading.
Beyond the specifics, it seems to me that what you’ve done in that comment is quite similar to what some hard-core Bernie supporters do with Hillary – putting the worst possible interpretation on any of the other candidate’s actions. Which is politics as usual, of course, and not a big deal…just pointing out that it’s hardly a one-way street.
Again, there was one interview with Weaver where he waffled on that, but both before and after that Bernie himself has stated that he will indeed release updated details before Iowa. Of course maybe Weaver’s waffle was a candidate-approved trial balloon, and Hillary’s subsequent attack forced them to conclude said balloon would not fly…in which case, good, he should release those changes before Iowa, and now if he doesn’t, he’d clearly be breaking his promise. So, we’ll see. (And I suppose he might release those details just a day or two before, which would technically be keeping his promise, but not really keeping to the “spirit” of it, since the rational for releasing it before is so that people get a chance to look at it and discuss it).
I’m old enough to remember 1968, when the Democratic left abandoned Hubert Humphrey and gave us Richard Nixon. And I remember 2000, when the Democratic left abandoned Al Gore and gave us George W. Bush. The kind of hatred and vitriol I see directed toward Hillary Clinton on “liberal” sites makes me believe that we are much closer to 1968 and 2000, than we are to 2008, when Hillary’s supporters voted almost unanimously for Obama in the general election.
Absolutely correct. I commented after this past week’s debate, that every single candidate up there was spinning himself further and further to the right than they had in any previous debate this season. It was also the most “fact-free” debate of the season as well.
If we break it down by candidates…Trump cannot, under any circumstances, change his stance on immigration, and now on Muslims. To do so would be to incur immediate and complete dismissal by his supporters. On every other “policy” issues, he can say or do or change whatever he likes. Because they don’t really listen to that, and Trump really doesn’t care about other policy issues. He follows their lead.
Cruz, on the other hand, has marked himself out as the “true conservative”…not just for this campaign, but pretty much his entire political career. He isn’t changing that, because its part of his long term strategy, personally. Cruz would much rather lose badly by being a “true conservative” than win closely by being a “moderate”.
Rubio could attempt a move to the center,but…in typcial Rubio fashion…he has gone after the short term perceived gain of “being a true conservative” far too vehemently, and thus, has locked himself in. You don’t get to backtrack on guns or ISIS when you say on a Sunday talk show that you bought a gun to be the last stand against ISIS taking over your house. (and yes, he really went there this morning). That doesn’t mean a Rubio nominee wouldn’t try…but it would be so awkward and doomed to failure that Romney would look like a world class gymnast by comparison.
Which could be said right now, given that the last debate before the Iowa caucuses is tonight and Sanders still hasn’t released those details. Meaningful discussion means letting your opponent debate your proposals , and giving yourself a chance to defend them and make their case to the opponent. Sanders is obviously not doing that.
