March 13, 2015

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac Connecticut 2016 Democratic Primary Survey

Quinnipiac Connecticut 2016 Democratic Primary Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 53%
  • Elizabeth Warren 15%
  • Joe Biden 8%
  • Bernie Sanders 2%
  • Martin O’Malley 1%
  • Jim Webb 1%

Survey of 459 registered Democrats was conducted March 6-9, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 4.6 percentage points.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

March 12, 2015

Ben Carson Announces Exploratory Committee

Carson formed an exploratory committee and announced via video online. He’s also redesigned his website to match the new theme of his exploratory committee. Not a lot of depth yet to the site on what his views are, but it’s a slick looking if simplistic website. It has a lot on the personal narrative of Ben Carson’s life, which is really his strongest selling point. Check it out and feel free to comment below.

by @ 10:32 am. Filed under 2016, Ben Carson

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Wisconsin 2016 Presidential Survey

  • Hillary Clinton (D) 48% {50%} [47%]
  • Rand Paul (R) 42% {39%} [42%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 47% {50%}
  • Mike Huckabee (R) 40% {38%}
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 48% (52%)
  • Marco Rubio (R) 40% (38%)
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
  • Rick Perry (R) 40%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 48% {49%} [43%]
  • Chris Christie (R) 39% {36%} [40%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 52% {51%} [49%] (54%)
  • Scott Walker (R) 43% {44%} [44%] (41%)
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 49% [48%]
  • Ted Cruz (R) 39% [37%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 49% {50%} [46%]
  • Jeb Bush (R) 39% {39%} [42%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 49%
  • Ben Carson (R) 38%
  • Elizabeth Warren (D) 48%
  • Scott Walker (R) 45%
  • Joe Biden (D) 48%
  • Scott Walker (R) 45%

Do you think Scott Walker should run for President, or not?

  • Walker should run for President 35% {29%}
  • Walker should not run for President 58% {61%}
Survey of 1,071 registered Wisconsin voters was conducted March 6-8, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 3.0 percentage points. Party ID: 34% {33%} [32%] (31%) Democrat; 32% {33%} [28%] (30%) Republican; 34% {35%} [41%] (39%) Independent/Other.  Political ideology: 30% {28%} [32%] (29%) Moderate; 23% {24%} [25%] (22%) Somewhat conservative; 18% {16%} [15%] (17%) Very conservative; 17% {20%} [17%] (21%) Somewhat liberal; 11% {13%} [11%] (11%) Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted April 17-20, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 13-16, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 21-24, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 9:54 am. Filed under 2016, Democrats, Joe Biden, Poll Watch, Scott Walker

Poll Watch: Rasmussen 2016 Democratic Nomination Survey

Rasmussen 2016 Democratic Nomination Poll

If Hillary Clinton decides not to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, which of these candidates would you choose to be the Democratic nominee next year – Joe Biden, James Webb, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Martin O’Malley? 

  • Elizabeth Warren 31%
  • Joe Biden 30%
  • Bernie Sanders 7%
  • Jim Webb 6%
  • Martin O’Malley 2%
  • Some other candidate 12%
  • Undecided 13%

Survey of likely Democratic voters was conducted March 8-9, 2015.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 9:52 am. Filed under 2016, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Poll Watch

March 11, 2015

The Unthinkable Becomes Thinkable

It was unthinkable until now that Hillary Clinton would not be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. It had been unthinkable in 2007 that she would not win in 2008, but the unthinkable did happen. This, of course, made the unthinkable even more unthinkable in 2015. Surely, any observer could reasonably conclude, she would not make the same mistakes again.

As I write this, Mrs Clinton dominates the polling for her party’s nomination by a very wide margin. She defeats any visible Republican opponent in almost every poll (although her margins have been slipping noticeably in recent days.) She has been until just now the frontrunner’s idea of a frontrunner, and no one since Dwight Eisenhower has seemed more inevitable for a party nomination in a race for president with no incumbent running.

Nevertheless, Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is now in some trouble. The furor over her use of a private e-mails while she was U.S.secretary of state will almost certainly pass, but it certainly should have passed sooner. While prima facie improper, it is not in itself (with the information we now have) disqualifying.

It might be important to note that Mrs. Clinton’s main problem is not about making any new political mistakes. Her greatest problems seem to be about something she cannot now control or explain away, that is, her record as a public figure. While it once seemed to be a clever strategy for her (and her husband, the former president) to devise in 2008-09, that is, for her to accept the position of secretary of state in the Obama administration, her performance in that office, and under that particular president, seems to have reopened and magnified political controversies from her past, including her record of judgment, her apparently obsession for secrecy, her dependence on others to cover up her mistakes, and the untransparent and now controversial institution of the large Clinton Foundation which she heads with her husband.

It is possible, of course, that Hillary Clinton can still be the Democratic nominee for president; and even possible that Republicans will make such a mess of their current opportunity that she wins the presidency next November. There is no incontrovertible evidence in the polls that she cannot still win.

But it is becoming clear that her Republican opponents will have much from Mrs. Clinton’s past and present to bring up to the voters, and should the unthinkable happen, i.e., a bitter nomination contest — in which case there would be much her potential opponents from her own party could use against  her. With  former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley now moving toward a Democratic nomination contest; Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren already quite popular in the party’s grass roots base; Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders also making noises to her left; former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, a populist, waiting in the wings; the possibly formidable New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also in the wings; and Vice President Joe Biden desperate for a good reason to stay in the race; the chemistry of the 2016 race for the Democratic presidential nomination could create a genuine contest in a short period of time.

I point out to the reader how quickly Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has emerged as a first tier candidate in the GOP contest; how quickly New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has (at least temporarily) faded in the polls. (And how quickly he might recover when the debates begin.) With almost a year until the primaries and caucuses, the Republican contest is clearly unsettled. In the face of Mrs. Clinton’s weak performance so far, the general lack of true enthusiasm for her nomination, and now the recurring controversies, it might be very soon that the Democratic contest could also be considered quite unsettled.

Until now, it was unthinkable to say that Hilary Clinton’s nomination was not “a done deal.” There might still be a deal done on her behalf, she might yet still be president, but I think there are some very smart Democratic leaders and strategists now suddenly at least thinking about the unthinkable.

_________________________________________________________

-Copyright (c) 2015 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Wisconsin 2016 Republican Primary Survey

  • Scott Walker 53% {21%} [37%] (33%) 
  • Ben Carson 12%
  • Jeb Bush 8% {6%} [11%] (5%)
  • Marco Rubio 6% {6%} [9%] (27%)
  • Rand Paul 6% {8%} [10%] (6%)
  • Chris Christie 4% {8%} [13%] (10%)
  • Mike Huckabee 3% {8%} (7%)
  • Ted Cruz 2% {7%} [10%]
  • Rick Perry 1% (0%)
  • Not sure 5% {8%} [3%] (8%)

Do you think Scott Walker should run for President in 2016, or not?

  • Think he should 67% {43%}
  • Think he should not 25% {42%}

Survey of 461 Republican primary voters was conducted March 6-8, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 4.6 percentage points. Ideology: 39% {42%} [41%] Somewhat conservative; 35% {34%} [34%] Very conservative; 20% {19%} [18%] Moderate; 4% {3%} [5%] Somewhat liberal; 2% {2%} [1%] Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted April 17-20, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 13-16, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 21-24, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 8:00 am. Filed under 2016, Poll Watch, Republican Party, Scott Walker

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Wisconsin 2016 Democratic Primary Survey

  • Hillary Clinton 60% (50%)
  • Joe Biden 14% (11%)
  • Elizabeth Warren 12% (4%)
  • Bernie Sanders 5%
  • Martin O’Malley 1% (0%)
  • Jim Webb 1%
  • Someone else/Undecided 7% (9%)

Survey of 504 Democratic primary voters was conducted March 6-8, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. Ideology: 37% (39%) Moderate; 32% (32%) Somewhat liberal; 21% (20%) Very liberal; 7% (8%) Somewhat conservative; 3% (1%) Very conservative. Results from the poll conducted September 13-16, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 4:00 am. Filed under 2016, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Poll Watch

March 10, 2015

Poll Watch: PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 Democratic Primary Survey

  • Hillary Clinton 56%
  • Elizabeth Warren 13% 
  • Joe Biden 11%
  • Martin O’Malley 3%
  • Jim Webb 3% 
  • Bernie Sanders 1%
  • Someone else/Undecided 12%

Survey of 401 Democratic primary voters was conducted February 24-26, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Ideology: 38% Moderate; 27% Somewhat liberal; 21% Very liberal; 8% Somewhat conservative; 6% Very conservative.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 8:00 am. Filed under 2016, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Poll Watch

Poll Watch: Gravis Insights/Howie Carr (R) Florida 2016 Democratic Primary Survey

Gravis Insights/Howie Carr (R) Florida 2016 Democratic Primary Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 52% (51%)
  • Elizabeth Warren 14% (18%)
  • Joe Biden 9% (12%)
  • Jim Webb 2%
  • Mark Warner 2%
  • Martin O’Malley 2% (4%)
  • Unsure 18% (13%)

Survey of 435 Democratic voters was conducted February 24-25, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 19-20, 2014 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

March 9, 2015

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac 2016 Presidential Survey

  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45% (46%) {48%} [49%] (48%) {48%}
  • Jeb Bush (R) 42% (41%) {41%} [38%] (39%) {40%}
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46% [50%]
  • Marco Rubio (R) 41% [34%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 47% (46%) {49%} [49%] (48%) {49%} [53%] (50%) {49%}
  • Rand Paul (R) 41% (41%) {40%} [39%] (41%) {40%} [36%] (38%) {41%}
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46% (43%) {47%} [46%] (41%) {42%}[49%] (46%) [45%]
  • Chris Christie (R) 39% (42%) {38%} [38%] (42%) {43%} [36%] (40%) [37%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 47% (46%) {49%}
  • Mike Huckabee (R) 40% (41%) {40%}
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
  • Scott Walker (R) 39%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 48% (48%) [50%] (50%) {51%} [54%]
  • Ted Cruz (R) 38% (37%) [35%] (37%) {36%} [31%]
National survey of 1,286 registered voters was conducted February 26 – March 2, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 2.7 percentage points.  Party ID: 32% (31%) {26%} [26%] (26%) {26%} [24%] (23%) {27%} [25%] Republican; 29% (30%) {31%} [29%] (31%) {32%} [35%] (32%) {33%} [34%] Democrat; 28% (27%) {35%} [36%] (34%) {35%} [31%] (35%) {33%} [34%] Independent; 11% (12%) {7%} [9%] (9%) {7%} [9%] (9%) {7%} [7%] Other/Don’t know. Race: 73% (74%) {73%} [74%] (74%) {72%} [72%] White; 13% (12%) {13%} [11%] (12%) {12%} [12%] Black; 7% (7%) {7%} [8%] (7%) {7%} [8%] Hispanic; 7% (7%) {8%} [7%] (6%) {8%} [8%] Other. Results from the poll conducted November 18-23, 2014 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 24-30, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 15-19, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 3-9, 2013 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted November 6-11, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 23-29, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 28 – July 8, 2013 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted May 22-28, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 27 – March 4, 2013 are in square brackets.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 7:00 am. Filed under 2016, Hillary Clinton, Poll Watch, Republican Party

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac 2016 Democratic Nomination Survey

  • Hillary Clinton 56% {57%} [58%] (65%) {66%} [61%] (65%)
  • Elizabeth Warren 14% {13%} [11%] (7%) {7%} [7%]
  • Joe Biden 10% {9%} [9%] (8%) {8%} [11%] (13%)
  • Bernie Sanders 4% {4%}
  • Jim Webb 1% {1%}
  • Martin O’Malley 0% {1%} [1%] (1%) {0%} [0%] (1%)
  • Don’t know 14% {14%} [15%] (13%) {12%} [15%] (14%)

If Hillary Clinton does not run for President:

  • Joe Biden 35% {34%} (45%)
  • Elizabeth Warren 25% {25%}
  • Bernie Sanders 7% {6%}
  • Jim Webb 3% {2%}
  • Martin O’Malley 1% {2%} (3%)
  • Don’t know 25% {28%} (26%)

National survey of 493 registered Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters was conducted February 26 – March 2, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 18-23, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 24-30, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 15-19, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 3-9, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 23-29, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted April 25-29, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 4:00 am. Filed under 2016, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Poll Watch

March 8, 2015

Poll Watch: McClatchy-Marist 2016 Republican Nomination Survey

McClatchy-Marist 2016 GOP Nomination Poll

  • Jeb Bush 19% [16%] (15%) {13%} [13%] (8%) {8%} [10%] (10%)
  • Scott Walker 18% [3%] (3%) {4%} [5%] (7%) {4%} [4%] (2%)
  • Mike Huckabee 10% [12%] [13%] (13%)
  • Ben Carson 9% [8%]
  • Rand Paul 7% [6%] (13%) {7%} [12%] (9%) {9%} [12%] (9%)
  • Chris Christie 6% [10%] (12%) {13%} [12%] (13%) {16%} [18%] (15%)
  • Marco Rubio 5% [3%] (6%) {9%} [7%] (12%) {7%} [7%] (12%)
  • Ted Cruz 4% [5%] (4%) {10%} [4%] (5%) {5%} [10%] (7%)
  • Rick Perry 3% [5%] (7%) {7%} [3%] (2%) {6%} [3%] (4%)
  • Rick Santorum 2% [3%] (3%) {3%} [3%] (2%) {5%} [4%] (2%)
  • Carly Fiorina 2% [1%]
  • Lindsey Graham 1%
  • Undecided 13% [18%] (21%) {23%} [14%] (12%) {25%} [13%] (25%)

Survey of 426 registered Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents was conducted March 1-4, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 4.7 percentage points. Party ID: 68% {70%} (67%) {57%} [63%] (64%) {65%} [62%] (65%) Republican; 32% {30%} (33%) {43%} [37%] (36%) {35%} [38%] (35%) Independent. Results from the poll conducted December 3-9, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 24-29, 2014 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 4-7, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted April 7-10, 2014 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 4-9, 2014 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 12-14, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 3-5, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 15-18, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 11:00 am. Filed under 2016, Jeb Bush, Poll Watch, Republican Party

Poll Watch: McClatchy-Marist 2016 Democratic Nomination Survey

McClatchy-Marist 2016 Democratic Nomination Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 60% (62%) {64%} [65%] (63%)
  • Joe Biden 13% (11%) {15%} [12%] (13%)
  • Elizabeth Warren 12% (9%) {8%} [9%]
  • Bernie Sanders 5% (4%) {4%}
  • Martin O’Malley 1% (1%) {2%} [1%] (1%)
  • Jim Webb 1% (1%) {1%}
  • Undecided 9% (11%) {6%} [9%] (18%)

Survey of 462 registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents was conducted March 1-4, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 4.6 percentage points. Party ID: 70% (72%) {76%} Democrat; 30% (28%) {24%} Independent. Results from the poll conducted December 3-9, 2014 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conductedSeptember 24-29, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 3-5, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-18, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 7:00 am. Filed under 2016, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Poll Watch

March 7, 2015

Poll Watch: PPP (D) Ohio 2016 Presidential Survey

  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45% (50%)
  • Jeb Bush (R) 40% (36%)
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 49%
  • Scott Walker (R) 41%

Survey of 946 registered voters was conducted March 2-3, 2015.  Party ID: 41% (42%) Democrat; 36% (36%) Republican; 22% (22%)Independent/Other.  Results from the poll conducted August 16-19, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 12:00 pm. Filed under 2016, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Poll Watch, Scott Walker

Poll Watch: NBC News/Marist Iowa 2016 Democratic Caucus Survey

NBC News/Marist Iowa 2016 Democratic Caucus Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 68% (70%)
  • Joe Biden 12% (20%)
  • Bernie Sanders 7%
  • Jim Webb 1%
  • Martin O’Malley 0%
  • Undecided 12% (10%)

Survey of 321 potential Democratic caucus-goers was conducted February 3-10, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 7-13, 2014 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

March 6, 2015

Poll Watch: NBC News/Marist New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary Survey

NBC News/Marist New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 69% (74%)
  • Bernie Sanders 13%
  • Joe Biden 8% (18%)
  • Jim Webb 2%
  • Martin O’Malley 0%
  • Undecided 7% (8%)

Survey of 309 potential Democratic primary voters was conducted February 3-10, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 5.6 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 7-13, 2014 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Poll Watch: PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 Presidential Survey

PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 Presidential Poll

  • Ben Carson (R) 46% (45%) {44%}
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45% (45%) {44%}
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46% {46%} [45%] (45%) {46%} [47%] (48%) {49%} [48%]
  • Mike Huckabee (R) 46% {44%} [46%] (44%) {43%} [43%] (43%) {42%} [43%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45% (46%)
  • Scott Walker (R) 43% (44%)
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45% {44%} [45%] (45%) {45%} [44%] (46%) {46%} [45%] (42%) {42%} [43%]
  • Chris Christie (R) 42% {42%} [38%] (38%) {41%} [40%] (44%) {42%} [42%] (43%) {45%} [46%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46% [46%] (47%) {46%} [45%] (47%) {49%} [47%] (47%) {48%} [50%] (52%) 
  • Rand Paul (R) 43% [41%] (42%) {43%} [44%] (43%) {43%} [44%] (43%) {44%} [41%] (40%)
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
  • Rick Perry (R) 44%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
  • Marco Rubio (R) 42%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 47% [48%] (47%) (47%) {49%} [51%]
  • Ted Cruz (R) 43% [40%] (41%) (41%) {41%} [39%]
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46% (44%) {46%} [43%] (46%) {45%} [45%] (45%) {47%} [47%] (46%) {46%} [47%]
  • Jeb Bush (R) 42% (44%) {46%} [45%] (42%) {44%} [42%] (44%) {46%} [43%] (44%) {45%} [43%]
  • Jeb Bush (R) 47% {47%}
  • Joe Biden (D) 40% {42%}
  • Jeb Bush (R) 44% {46%}
  • Elizabeth Warren (D) 38% {39%}

Survey of 849 registered North Carolina voters was conducted February 24-26, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 3.4 percentage points. Party ID: 44% (43%) {42%} [45%] (42%) {43%} [42%] (42%) {42%} [39%] (43%) {43%} [45%] Democrat; 35% (34%) {36%} [34%] (31%) {36%} [35%] (36%) {35%} [34%] (33%) {34%} [33%] Republican; 21% (23%) {22%} [21%] (27%) {22%} [23%] (22%) {23%} [27%] (23%) {23%} [21%] Independent/Other.  Results from the poll conducted January 29-31, 2015 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-7, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 11-14, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17, 2014 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 12-15, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted May 9-11, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted April 3-6, 2014 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2014 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 6-9, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 9-12, 2014are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 5-8, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 8-11, 2013 are in square brackets.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 8:00 am. Filed under 2016, Ben Carson, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Poll Watch, Republican Party

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac 2016 Republican Nomination Survey

Quinnipiac 2016 GOP Nomination Poll

  • Scott Walker 18% {6%} [8%] (6%) {5%} [4%] (2%)
  • Jeb Bush 16% {14%} [10%] (11%) {11%} [11%] (10%)
  • Chris Christie 8% {11%} [10%] (12%) {17%} [13%] (14%)
  • Mike Huckabee 8% {7%} [10%]
  • Ben Carson 7% {9%}
  • Ted Cruz 6% {5%} [8%] (9%) {13%} [10%]
  • Rand Paul 6% {8%} [11%] (13%) {14%} [17%] (15%)
  • Marco Rubio 5% {3%} [6%] (8%) {7%} [12%] (19%)
  • Bobby Jindal 2% {3%} [1%] (3%) {3%} [3%] (3%)
  • Rick Santorum 2% {2%} [2%]
  • Lindsey Graham 1%
  • John Kasich 1% {2%} [2%] (2%) {2%}
  • Rick Perry 1% {3%} [3%]
  • Don’t know 17% {19%} [20%] (22%) {17%} [19%] (18%)

Survey of 554 registered Republican and GOP-leaning voters was conducted February 26 – March 2, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 4.2 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 18-23, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 24-30, 2014 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 15-19, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 3-9, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 23-29, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 26 – April 1, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 4:00 am. Filed under 2016, Republican Party, Scott Walker

March 5, 2015

Poll Watch: PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 Republican Primary Survey

PPP (D) North Carolina 2016 GOP Primary Poll

  • Scott Walker 24% [14%] {5%} (7%) {6%} [4%] (3%) {5%} [1%]
  • Jeb Bush 17% [14%] (15%) {17%} [15%] (18%) {12%} [15%] (14%) {15%} [16%] (9%)
  • Mike Huckabee 15% [13%] (14%) {17%} [19%] (22%) {19%} [20%] (15%)
  • Ben Carson 12% [14%] (19%)
  • Marco Rubio 7% (4%) {5%} [5%] (5%) {5%} [7%] (9%) {10%} [10%] (21%)
  • Chris Christie 5% [5%] (14%) {12%} [9%] (12%) {15%} [11%](17%) {19%} [20%] (10%)
  • Rand Paul 5% [6%] (5%) {12%} [15%] (9%) {12%} [14%] (14%) {13%} [12%] (6%)
  • Rick Perry 3% [3%] (7%)
  • Ted Cruz 3% [6%] (5%) {12%} [17%] (12%) {14%} [8%] (11%) {12%} [12%]
  • Not sure 8% [9%] (7%) {11%} [9%] (6%) {12%} [9%] (13%) {11%} [13%] (8%)

Survey of 389 Republican primary voters was conducted February 24-26, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 5.0 percentage points. Political ideology: 38% [35%] (39%) {40%} [45%] (39%) {37%} [35%] (38%) {37%} [36%] (44%) Very conservative; 36% [39%] (38%) {37%} [35%] (32%) {35%} [33%] (40%) {39%} [36%] (35%) Somewhat conservative; 19% [20%] (18%) {20%} [13%] (21%) {20%} [22%] (16%) {16%} [21%] (13%) Moderate; 4% [4%] (5%) {2%} [4%] (6%) {4%} [7%] (4%) {7%} [4%] (6%) Somewhat liberal; 3% [2%] (1%) {1%} [4%] (3%) {3%} [3%] (2%) {1%} [3%] (1%) Very liberal.Results from the poll conducted January 29-31, 2015 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 4-7, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted May 9-11, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 26-28, 2014 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 3-6, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 6-9, 2014 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 9-12, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 5-8, 2013 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 8-11, 2013 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 6-9, 2012 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 4:54 pm. Filed under 2016, Poll Watch, Republican Party, Scott Walker

Poll Watch: Gravis Marketing (R) South Carolina 2016 Republican Primary Survey

  • Jeb Bush 19% {18%} [22%] (16.0%)
  • Scott Walker 17% {11%} [5%] (2.3%)
  • Lindsey Graham 12%
  • Mike Huckabee 10% {11%} [19%] (15.8%)  
  • Chris Christie 8% {8%} [12%] (16.6%)
  • Marco Rubio 6% {9%} [6%] (7.2%)
  • Rand Paul 6% {8%} [8%] (9.7%)
  • Ted Cruz 2% {9%} [8%] (11.1%)
  • Rick Santorum 2% {4%} [2%] (2.8%)
  • Carly Fiorina 2%
  • Unsure 16% {17%} [19%] (18.5%)

Survey of 792 ikely GOP primary voters was conducted February 24-25, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 21-22, 2015 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 6-7, 2014 are in square brackets.Results from the poll conducted November 30 – December 2, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 2:34 pm. Filed under 2016, Jeb Bush, Poll Watch, Republican Party

Passing the Test: Prepared to be President?

The first test any candidate running in a presidential primary must pass is simple: the public must be able to picture you being the President.

There’s a lot wrapped up in that analysis, of course, but for most voters, it comes down to one thing: competency. Are you intelligent and capable of leading a country? If not, the electorate will (rightly) toss you aside and move along to the next candidate.

Along those lines, every verbal slip, campaign trail gaffe, and moment of misspeaking will get noticed and dissected in front of the entire nation. The best politicians have learned over time to successfully navigate these perilous waters, while newcomers often learn the dangers the hard way as they watch their presidential ambitions sink into the icy water.

It’s no surprise that little-known candidates suffer this fate far more often. Case in point is the series of “flavors of the month” from the last primary campaign whose wings of wax continually melted under the hot lights of national media scrutiny. Rick Perry had several awful moments stretching several debates that killed his candidacy. Herman Cain imploded due to a series of massive gaffes on foreign policy, abortion, and immigration, before allegations of sexual harassment ended his campaign for good. Michelle Bachmann had a playlist of gaffes a mile long when she had her chance at the top of the polls, touching on anything from John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy, vaccinations and mental retardation, and the founding fathers and slavery. Newt Gingrich was, well, Newt Gingrich, but he had a list of gaffes as well: unveiling a plan to pay poor kids to be janitors, expressing a desire to lecture black people about food stamps and paychecks, calling for the return of poll tests to vote, and promising to colonize the moon. (What?!?)

At any rate, the 2012 primary was a clear example of what happens when candidates are underprepared for the spotlight. Hopefully we won’t see a replay of that sort of ineptitude for a very long time in Republican politics, but it is instructive to us today. Candidates had better be prepared to answer questions on mainstream issues in an intelligent and coherent way. Which brings us to two of our fresh new faces in this campaign who need to heed this lesson quickly: Dr. Ben Carson and Governor Scott Walker.

Last summer, Carson made it into the news for suggesting that the marriage equality movement in America was actually a communist plot to take down the United States and start the infamous New World Order. Now, Carson has expounded on his views on homosexuality by invoking… prison sex. According to Dr. Carson, being gay is a choice because people who weren’t gay when they went to prison engage in gay sex while in prison.

Setting aside the obvious logical fallacies in Carson’s argument (orientation vs. behavior, choice vs forced sex, etc.), what these sorts of comments make clear is that Carson is nowhere near ready for the bright lights of the national stage yet.

Joining him is current frontrunner Governor Scott Walker. At the end of his recent CPAC speech (which thrilled many but admittedly left me feeling entirely underwhelmed due to its overly generic nature), the Governor took questions. Asked about the threat posed by ISIS militants, Walker answered, “If I can take on 100,000 protesters [in Wisconsin], I can do the same across the world.” In one fell swoop, Walker equated the public workers in Wisconsin with Islamic terrorists and undercut his own national security/foreign policy credentials at the same time. Just stop and ask yourself one question: if a Democratic candidate-to-be compared a conservative group to ISIS militants, what would Republican reactions be?

Now, luckily, these gaffes come at a time when most of the nation is not paying attention. They are getting some media coverage, but not a lot — and the coverage they are getting is largely not being watched. This is the warmup phase of the primary campaign which gives Walker and Carson — as well as all of our candidates who have yet to experience the harsh reality of the limelight — time to practice their responses.

The bottom line is this: people need to be able to envision a candidate being president before they will consider voting for them for president. This takes priority over any policy stance and ideology, especially for candidates like Walker and Carson who have yet to introduce themselves to the public on a national level. All of the Republican candidates should take a lesson from the debacle that was the 2012 primaries and use this time to tighten up their message — after all, it’s not just themselves they’re representing, but the Republican Party as a whole as well.

by @ 4:00 am. Filed under 2016, Ben Carson, Press Releases, Republican Party, Scott Walker

March 4, 2015

Brutal Winter Puts So-Called “Global Warming” on Ice

NEW YORK — Winter 2015 has become a combination of Dr. Zhivago and the scary scenes of Frozen. This has rendered champions of so-called “global warming” eerily quiet.

Boston, the epicenter of this epic chill, has amassed a near-record 105.7 inches of snow this season. While Bostonians traverse snow mazes, trains have been idled, and at least 147 roofs have collapsed beneath the white stuff in Massachusetts alone.

Amid last week’s single-digit temperatures, Manhattan drug stores sold ski-resort-style toe warmers — a first in my 27 years here. Meanwhile, ice breakers crushed through the Hudson River, to keep ships moving.

Much of Niagara Falls has frozen solid. Using ice picks, Canadian adventurer Will Gadd on January 27 became the first person to climb 130 feet up the landmark over which daredevils have tumbled in barrels.

Across Dixie and beyond, ice has rendered car brakes useless. Numerous multiple-vehicle pileups have triggered injuries and deaths. Further south, Florida citrus farmers fear that their crop will become frozen concentrated orange juice, even before harvest.

Overseas, snow in Saudi Arabia inspired a cleric to instruct Muslims not to build snowmen, since Islam forbids human images. Some 29 migrants fleeing ISIS-inspired carnage in Libya died of hypothermia February 9 after Italian sailors plucked them from the frigid Mediterranean. The Guardian of London reports that English and Welsh death rates are 32 percent higher than normal this winter, as the cold kills.

In a cosmic irony, a student group called Fossil Free Yale cancelled a February 13 global-warming protest as temperatures hit -9 Fahrenheit.

It’s not supposed to be like this.

Citing the United Nations Environment Program’s Noel Brown, the July 5, 1989 Miami Herald reported that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Current eco-guru Bill McKibben predicted that year that “a few more decades of ungoverned fossil-fuel use and we burn up, to put it bluntly.”

Carbon dioxide is rising, which should poach the Earth in this greenhouse gas. As of last September, CO2 emissions “were on track to hit a record 40 billion metric tons…10 times more than in 1943 (4.007 billion tons),” reports the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Marlo Lewis, Jr. As CO2 soars, however, average temperatures flat line, and winter readings plunge. This capsizes the vaunted greenhouse effect.

The computer models behind so-called “global warming” similarly predict relentless heat. And yet satellites show no increase in Earth’s average temperature since 1997. A peer-reviewed paper recently published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences identifies a faulty equation common to these climate models. It wrongly forecasts warming at levels double or even triple actual observations.

Garbage in. Garbage out.

But wasn’t 2014 “the hottest year ever?” Surface thermometers so indicated. However, ground-level gauges can be swayed when creeping urbanization warms previously rural measuring stations. Far from such confounding variables, space-based Remote Sensing System satellite data rated last year the sixth hottest on record.

Also, most journalists failed to mention that NASA reported a 62 percent probability that their “hottest year” calculations were wrong. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated 52 percent odds that it was mistaken. In a court of law, such a wealth of reasonable doubts would make it impossible to convict a ham sandwich of jaywalking. So, in this case, 2014 most likely was not the hottest year ever.

Despite abundant and obvious counter-evidence, the so-called “global warming” alarmists cling to their precious theory. For them, it’s not about facts. It’s about faith.

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri admits as much. He chaired the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Vatican of Warmism. Pachauri quit the IPCC on February 24 amid sexual harassment charges. “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is [sic] more than a mission,” his resignation letter stated. “It is my religion and my dharma.”

As the ice and snow accumulate, and CO2 inexplicably increases, the alarmists will stop preaching so-called “global warming” as soon as radical imams stop issuing fatwas.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. A version of this piece first appeared at TownHall.com

by @ 7:30 pm. Filed under Deroy Murdock, Misc., Opinion

Poll Watch: Gravis Insights/Howie Carr (R) Florida 2016 Republican Primary Survey

Gravis Insights/Howie Carr (R) Florida 2016 GOP Primary Poll

  • Jeb Bush 23% (33%)
  • Scott Walker 22%
  • Marco Rubio 11% (14%)
  • Mike Huckabee 10%
  • Ben Carson 8%
  • Chris Christie 6% (6%)
  • Rand Paul 5% (11%)
  • Ted Cruz 2% (11%)
  • Rick Perry 1%
  • Unsure 12% (13%)

Survey of 513 Republican voters was conducted February 24-25, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 19-20, 2014 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 12:14 pm. Filed under 2016, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Poll Watch, Republican Party

New RNC Web Ad: A Very Serious Matter

New attack ad on Hillary Clinton. Feel free to comment below.

by @ 8:23 am. Filed under 2016, Campaign Advertisements, Hillary Clinton, Republican Party

Poll Watch: Rasmussen 2016 Presidential Survey

Rasmussen 2016 Presidential Poll

  • Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
  • Scott Walker (R) 41%
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 45% (47%)
  • Jeb Bush (R) 36% (33%)
  • Hillary Clinton (D) 47% [45%]
  • Ben Carson (R) 36% [38%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted February 28 – March 1, 2015. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted June 4-5, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 4-5, 2014 are in parentheses. 

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 4:00 am. Filed under 2016, Hillary Clinton, Poll Watch, Republican Party

March 3, 2015

Heighten the Contradictions

I’ve had a couple Chicago-themed items in my ever-growing Miscellany file; when I came up with a third, I decided to combine them into a single post.

While I realize this blog is about the 2016 presidential campaign, still I have been surprised how little attention has been paid here to Chicago’s mayoral race, which features an old favorite nemesis of ours, Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel is seeking re-election and, having failed to reach 50% in the first round, is facing a county commissioner, Jesus ‘Chuy’ Garcia, in a run-off.

Tom Bevan argues today in RCP that Emanuel, having received a well-deserved black eye by being forced into the run-off, now should get the support of sensible folks.

But now that the schadenfreude has worn off, Chicagoans face a choice.

As is the case in many big cities across the country, Chicago has been ruled exclusively by Democrats for a long time — since 1931, to be precise. The city’s last mayor, Richard M. Daley, ruled for 22 years before retiring in 2011, using a number of budget gimmicks on his way out the door to paper over the city’s profound fiscal problems — most notably a ticking time bomb pension payout set to detonate next year.

It’s hard to see how Garcia, a Democrat who’s more liberal than Emanuel and far more simpatico with the unions and other entrenched special interests, will be able to muster the political courage to make the tough choices that need to be made.

What Chicago really needs is a pragmatic, center-right technocrat — a Windy City version of Michael Bloomberg, for example — who could implement meaningful and lasting reforms to get the city’s fiscal house in order. But such a person isn’t on the ballot and, even more depressing, probably could not be elected if he (or she) were.

So Chicago faces a “lesser of two evils” election. It’s an unfortunate situation, but one that brings to mind the old saying “better the devil you know.” Rahm Emanuel is the devil we know — even if he has egg on his face.

It’s a perfectly reasonable viewpoint – which I, being often unreasonable, choose to reject. I will reach back several decades to my days hanging around with campus Marxists for the ‘why’, as well as for the title of this post.

‘Heightening the contradictions’ is an old Marxist idea that making the tottering capitalist system even more oppressive would make the workers more conscious of their burden and thus push them toward rebellion (or something like that – not being a Marxist, I was a bit hazy on the details). In the late sixties, though, my Marxist friends would often use the phrase in the course of arguing, for example, that Nixon was preferable to Humphrey, since Nixon was clearly a tool of the oppressors, while Humphrey posed as a friend of the workers.

It’s pretty much the opposite of the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument Bevan offers.

I’m taking this contrarian position because of the accumulating fiscal dilemma Chicago faces. Bevan alludes to it, and this recent item spells it out a bit more.

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Chicago drew closer to a fiscal free fall on Friday with a rating downgrade from Moody’s Investors Service that could trigger the immediate termination of four interest-rate swap agreements, costing the city about $58 million and raising the prospect of more broken swaps contracts.

The downgrade to Baa2, just two steps above junk, and a warning the rating could fall further still, means the third-biggest U.S. city could face even higher costs in the future if banks choose to terminate other interest-rate hedges against fluctuations in interest rates. All told, Chicago holds swaps contracts covering $2.67 billion in debt, according to a disclosure late last year.

“This is an unfortunate wake-up call for anyone still asleep over the fiscal cliff facing the city of Chicago,” said Laurence Msall, president of the Chicago-based government finance watchdog, The Civic Federation.

Chicago’s finances are already sagging under an unfunded pension liability Moody’s has pegged at $32 billion and that is equal to eight times the city’s operating revenue. The city has a $300 million structural deficit in its $3.53 billion operating budget and is required by an Illinois law to boost the 2016 contribution to its police and fire pension funds by $550 million.

Cost-saving reforms for the city’s other two pension funds, which face insolvency in a matter of years, are being challenged in court by labor unions and retirees.

If one accepts, as I do, the idea that Chicago will sooner or later follow Detroit into bankruptcy, then why not sooner? Let’s move things along so that it becomes increasingly difficult for everyone but the willfully blind to deny that the blue model is failing. If Garcia, as is likely, would refuse as mayor to do anything to rein in pensions and benefits while maintaining or expanding social spending – so much the better.

This poll says the run-off is roughly a dead heat, though I have no idea how credible the pollster is.

Bring on the revolution!

by @ 2:40 pm. Filed under Misc.

Poll Watch: CNN/ORC 2016 Democratic Nomination Survey

CNN/ORC 2016 Democratic Nomination Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 60% {66%} [65%] (67%) {64%} [63%] (65%)
  • Joe Biden 15% {8%} [9%] (8%) {13%} [12%] (10%)
  • Elizabeth Warren 12% {9%} [10%] (10%) [7%] (7%)
  • Bernie Sanders 3% {3%} [5%]
  • Jim Webb 2% {1%} [1%]
  • Martin O’Malley 1% {1%} [0%] (2%) {4%} [2%] (2%)

Survey of 475 Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents was conducted February 12-15, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 18-21, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 21-23, 2014 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 18-20, 2014 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted March 7-9, 2014 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 18-20, 2013 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 6-8, 2013 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 10:30 am. Filed under 2016, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Poll Watch

Poll Watch: PPP (D) 2016 Democratic Nomination Survey

PPP (D) 2016 Democratic Nomination Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 54% (60%)
  • Joe Biden 16% (15%)
  • Elizabeth Warren 12% (10%)
  • Bernie Sanders 5% (2%)
  • Jim Webb 2% (1%)
  • Martin O’Malley 1% (1%)
  • Someone else/Undecided 10% (11%)

Survey of 310 Democratic primary voters was conducted February 20-22, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 5.6 percentage points.  Political ideology: 29% (38%) Moderate; 28% (22%) Very liberal; 26% (26%)Somewhat liberal; 14% (11%) Somewhat conservative; 3% (3%) Very conservative. Results from the poll conducted January 22-25, 2015 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 8:00 am. Filed under 2016, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Poll Watch

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac Iowa 2016 Democratic Caucus Survey

Quinnipiac Iowa 2016 Democratic Caucus Poll

  • Hillary Clinton 61%
  • Elizabeth Warren 19%
  • Joe Biden 7%
  • Bernie Sanders 5%
  • Jim Webb 2%
  • Martin O’Malley 0%

Survey of 619 likely Iowa Democratic caucus participants was conducted February 16-23, 2015.  The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 4:00 am. Filed under 2016, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Poll Watch

March 2, 2015

News, And Yet No News

The CPAC event just concluded in Washington, DC has proven, through its straw poll, to be another mostly irrelevant marker in the presidential election cycle. The winner of the straw poll was Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Coming in second was Wisconsin Senator Scott Walker. Third and fourth were Ben Carson and TexasmSenator Ted Cruz. Only Mr. Walker has a serious chance to win the nomination, but his finish at CPAC had already been foreshadowed weeks before, following a speech he made in Iowa, and in all of the recent polls. Coming in a distant fifth at CPAC was the Republican frontrunner former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Further down the list was New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a potentially serious contender, especially after the first debates and the primary/caucus season begins.

The next GOP presidential campaign marker will be the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames in August. This will be, as it has been in the past, another mostly irrelevant event. In 2011, the Straw Poll winner was Michele Bachmann who turned out not to be a serious contender. The Straw Poll rarely is won by the eventual GOP nominee.

A parade of self-promoting wannabes, such as Donald Trump and Rick Santorum, will continue to win media headlines in the coming months, and various other political figures will attempt to rise about the lower tiers of the field. It can be done. Scott Walker has already done this. But the eventual nominee will be someone who can win votes in the primaries and caucuses from the broader base of the conservative Republican Party. And if that nominee is to win the presidency in November, 2016, he or she will need to win a majority of votes from the non-affiliated independent voters in the nation. A good many, if not most, of those voters are more centrist than the base voters of either party, and that is why the serious contenders for president do not come from the far right or the far left.

On the Democratic side, the party awaits the formal decision of former New York Senator Hillary Clinton. She has been the overwhelming frontrunner of her party for 2016 from the beginning. Her image and her numbers have declined a bit in recent months, and her “handlers” have thus kept her out of the campaign spotlight, but her lead remains very large. Only Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a potential threat, yet Mrs. Warren might not even run.

There are two campaign seasons in the race for president of the United States. The earlier and longer one is managed with the cooperation of the political party activists and the news media. It is usually an extended melodrama punctuated by such events as the CPAC conference, the Iowa Straw Poll, Jefferson dinners and talk shows where large numbers of hopefuls attempt, with histrionics and bravado, to become larger than life, and grab the notice of the relatively few folks who are paying attention. The second campaign is the one where voters increasingly pay attention, and which climaxes on Election Day.

I don’t have to say which of these campaigns counts most.

————————————————————————————————————————-
Copyright (c) 2015 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main