GOP Presidential Polling, Then And Now
Labor Day weekend is over, meaning the world of political punditry heaves a collective sigh of relief because, according to the calendar they use, this marks the end of the summer "Silly Season" and the point where the public starts to actually pay some attention to politics once again -- specifically, the presidential race. There's some truth to this, although people in Iowa and New Hampshire have likely already begun considering political presidential candidates, and there are plenty of people elsewhere who won't get interested until we get a lot closer to actually voting in primaries and caucuses. Still, with the second Republican presidential debate due next week, I thought it'd be a good time for a quick review of where the Republican field now stands and where it could go in the very near future. My personal feeling is that Donald Trump might just be approaching a point where he becomes unstoppable, which started as a gut feeling but looks entirely plausible, given the data.
[I should mention as a technical note that all of the data I'm about to analyze comes from the 2106 GOP presidential polling page and the 2012 GOP presidential polling page, both from the RealClearPolitics.com website. I should also add that I only really paid any attention to the data on both pages from the beginning of July, the year before the actual election (any earlier polling is almost meaningless, really).]
The first question is whether anything can be learned from the 2012 race. The Republican field was similar in some ways to today's field, but there are also differences. In 2012, there was a presumptive frontrunner, Mitt Romney, who faced a wide field of challengers. While there were four challengers who overtook Romney in the polling at various times, Romney stayed in a pretty strong second place even during the challengers' peaks. He was always, at the very least, second or third choice in the field. This year's race also featured an early presumptive nominee, Jeb Bush, who faced an even-larger field of challengers. But one key difference is already apparent: Bush is nowhere near as strong as Romney was, at the start of September.
Mitt Romney hit his all-time low in the polls on the first of September, 2011. Bush is also at an all-time low in his polling. The difference is in the magnitude of the dip. Romney's low point was 16.5 percent. Bush is currently in single digits, at 9.3 percent, and he seems to be trending even lower. Bush's high point in the polls was only 17.8 percent, which he hit on July 12th. Romney, by way of contrast, kept pretty solidly and continuously in the range between 20 and 25 percent, until he began his climb upwards to victory, which started in January of the election year. Maybe this is due to the fact that the field is a lot larger this time around, or maybe Jeb's just a bad campaigner. Either way, the difference is notable. Romney never struggled as badly as Jeb already has, and Romney routinely hit high points in polling that far outstrip any numbers Jeb's posted yet. Which is why it's hard to deny that Romney was a much stronger candidate than Jeb Bush has so far been.
But the big news from the old data merely confirms a theory that popped into my head at some point during the long weekend. After watching Trump's numbers improve (yet again), I picked an arbitrary number for when Trump might just become unstoppable for the Republican nomination: a solid level of 35 percent support. It turns out my subconscious stab in the dark was pretty spot-on, at least if the 2012 race is any guide. Here is a quick summary of who peaked in the Republican race last time around, what date they peaked on, and how high they got in the Republican nationwide polling:
- Rick Perry (Sept. 12 -- 31.8 percent)
- Herman Cain (Nov. 2 -- 26.0)
- Newt Gingrich (Dec. 12 -- 35.0)
- Newt Gingrich (second peak)(Jan. 26 -- 31.3)
- Rick Santorum (Feb. 16, 34.2).
All of these "anti-Romney" candidates had their moment in the sun, and all of them drew better than 25 percent (all but Cain hit higher than 30 percent). Many of these rocketed straight up and then right back down again when they couldn't handle the national spotlight in one way or another (Perry's "oops" and Cain's history with women, for example). Gingrich was the only one to recover and have a second wave, but it peaked lower than his first. My big takeaway, however, is that nobody topped 35 percent, ever. Romney didn't even reach this height until it was pretty obvious he was going to win (Romney didn't even top 25 percent until the end of December). Newt Gingrich did very briefly hit 35.0 percent, but then went right back down.
I'm not sure why 35 percent seems to be some sort of magic number. It only represents a little more than one-third of the Republican electorate, after all. Almost two out of three GOP voters are still backing someone else, to put it another way. But 35 percent in such a crowded field means that you've pretty much eliminated almost all of the other competition. There might be one or two candidates nipping at your heels, but the rest of the field isn't even worth bothering about. When there are 17 people running, sustaining 35 percent might be enough to assure eventual victory.
When Donald Trump hit 20 percent in the polls (reliably -- in multiple polls over a period of time), the pundits all swore up and down that he had hit his ceiling. When Trump hit 25 percent in the polls -- again, and sustained it -- the pundits all said exactly the same thing: Trump was still doomed, he simply could not go any higher. Donald Trump has now hit 30 percent in a few polls. He hasn't yet proven he can sustain this level of support, but his trendline looks pretty good. Trump now holds over double the support of his closest challenger, and triple the support of the supposed inevitable nominee, Jeb Bush. Ben Carson is now on the ascendant, while Scott Walker and Jeb Bush both seem to be crashing and burning.
I see this somewhat differently than most pundits (at least, to hear them talk about it). They are, for the most part, convinced that Trump is essentially the Rick Perry of 2012. His numbers will collapse whenever that "oops" moment happens, and then we'll all go back to watching Jeb Bush take on all comers. I think this is silly, given the numbers. If anything, Ben Carson is much more easily seen as someone who could stumble badly on the national stage and watch his numbers collapse due to some ill-advised comment or debate moment. Trump, in this scenario, is this season's Mitt Romney -- always the guy everyone else has to beat, to get anywhere in the polls.
I realize some caveats are necessary. History never exactly repeats itself, one way or another. I'm only comparing one past presidential race to the one that's going on now -- if I had the time to crunch data from multiple previous campaigns, my theory might be shown to be constructed of moonbeams and nonsense. Trump might indeed be this year's Rick Perry -- who hit a high point of 31.8 almost exactly four years ago. But so far the Teflon nature of Trump's campaign (nothing sticks to him) means that even if he has an "oops" moment in a debate (entirely possible, seeing as how his first big oops moment happened while being interviewed by one of the moderators of next week's debate), his support might not evaporate the way Perry's did.
Trump's spectacular campaign has so far convinced three-in-ten Republican voters to back him. If he not only holds on to 30 percent support but also has a great debate night next week, I could easily see his rise continue. While everyone else is waiting for the "inevitable" Trump stumble (it's just gotta be coming, right?), I'm now actually pondering a different use of the word. Because if Trump hits 35 percent support from Republican voters, and holds that level for a decent period of time, then what might just be inevitable is that he's going to be the Republican nominee for president.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
One might say, with some degree of certainty, that Trump has been stumbling through his presidential primary campaign from the get-go, in the absence of any real criticism of how he is conducting himself or of what policies he is proposing, or not proposing, as the case may be.
But, if he does end up the Republican nominee, then what does that say about the Republican Party, about a good proportion of the voting American public, and about where America, itself, might be headed?
One might say, with some degree of certainty, that Trump has been stumbling through his presidential primary campaign from the get-go, in the absence of any real criticism of how he is conducting himself or of what policies he is proposing, or not proposing, as the case may be.
Absence of REAL criticism???
Surely you jest!?? :D
That is practically ALL that Trump has received since his announcement.. Sans supporters, of course..
Put another way.. There is no "eh.." about Trump...
One either loves him or hates/ridicules him...
In that sense, he is the Right Wing version of Hillary Clinton...
Michale
While everyone else is waiting for the "inevitable" Trump stumble (it's just gotta be coming, right?), I'm now actually pondering a different use of the word. Because if Trump hits 35 percent support from Republican voters, and holds that level for a decent period of time, then what might just be inevitable is that he's going to be the Republican nominee for president.
And, if that happens, to paraphrase the old George Jones song....
"It's {Gloating} Time Again....." :D
I'll be subtle... And brief... :D
Michale
But, if he does end up the Republican nominee, then what does that say about the Republican Party, about a good proportion of the voting American public, and about where America, itself, might be headed?
I think it says that America is finally getting serious about righting it's ship of state....
No pun intended.. :D
Maybe this country NEEDS to be run like a business.. And who better to do it right (again, no pun intended :D) than one of the best businessmen on the planet??
Michale
But, if he does end up the Republican nominee, then what does that say about the Republican Party,
I don't know if it says ANYTHING about the Republican Party..
It DOES say a whole lot about how much the American people are fed up with greasy, corrupt, Politically Correct politicians who will say anything to anyone just to get votes..
That's the appeal of Donald Trump.. In your face, telling it as he sees it with no mamby-pamby, group hugs, koom-bye-ya bullcarp...
How could he NOT be successful with the American people who are STARVED for such a leader??
A Trump has been inevitable since the day Obama took office...
Michale
And now that Clinton has REALLY stumbled and her former IT guru is being offered immunity in exchange for his testimony.....
It's entirely possible that we might actually see POTUS Trump..
How crazy is THAT!!???
All made possible but the utter incompetence and ineptitude of Obama and the Democrat Party... :D
Michale
Even allowing for a "Silly Seasonal Adjustment", I think this is an terrible time for political pundits and or pollsters.
The Republican field is huge(-uh) and that's putting a strain on historical precedents. History never does more than suggest plausible scenarios, but right now the notion of plausible seems highly stretched...at least to me. In normal cycles, the Democratic field would be considered large for a party with a sitting Prez - but these are not ordinary times.
The art of semi-scientific polling has probably not been weaker than at any time since Truman-Dewey. There is a Perfect Storm out there, and it's hammering The Representative Voter Sample, the life-blood of objective pollsters. The Storm has a number of elements:
:-( The Huge(-uh) Republican Field Sixteen + betas is a BIG statistical model and you are going to want a BIG sample to cope with this. This gets expensive in an exponential fashion, which is not good.
:-( Rapidly shifting voter demographics
Even more rapidly shifting personal communications technology. Cell-phone and I-phones have distorted polling as we used to know it. TheStig, who is nothing if not CHEAP, uses internet phone. TheStig also switched to internet phone because he hates receiving 50+ pointless calls per day from his shiftless merchants, family, friends and well wishers. Nobody has polled him in 4 years, maybe more, because he uses internet phone.
:-( Polling bias isn't a fatal weakness if it's predictable from recent history and you correct your models for it. If a pollster or pundit corrects for systematic bias, said individual can create meta data from all the other polls out there. Meta data is much more powerful and reliable than its individual bits. I'm not sure this is going to work well this year. I think there could be big surprises, or maybe it's better to say that I fear a much greater likelihood of big surprises this year. Especially early on, which of course is going to affect Later On (aka non-silly season primaries and the actual elections).
Readers of CW.com know that I like Prediction Markets, such as the late lamented InTrade and the not quite as good but still in business BetFair. Predictions Markets have a good track record going back well over a century. As good or better than "scientific polling" IMHO. Still, they worry me a bit right now. The volume of the markets is fairly small. A small market is relatively easy and cheap to manipulate, if somebody wanted to so. The market may have a herd mentality. Too many people may just bet based on Nate Silver's columns. A crowd may be wise, a herd is probably dumb.
Michale,
Of course, I mean the kind of criticism that comes from an enlightened media and analytical class and exposes him for the fraud that he is by deconstructing his house of cards which masquerades as a policy platform.
Of course, I mean the kind of criticism that comes from an enlightened media and analytical class and exposes him for the fraud that he is by deconstructing his house of cards which masquerades as a policy platform.
Maybe there is no criticism that exposes Trump as a fraud because Trump is NOT a fraud??
His success in business is well-documented and beyond dispute...
He has more "ACCOMPLISHMENT" in his little pinky-nail than Obama had in his entire body when Obama was elected POTUS...
He has already laid out some policy platforms that DEMOCRATS agree with...
Take away his illegal immigrant position and the Left would LOVE Trump... :D
Michale
Hey CW
I am still of the opinion that, like Romney who was also born on third base, Trump won't manage to make it home.
Of course, looking at 2012, Repubs seemingly are blind to the politics of wealth... and look to be repeating their mistake... deja vu all over again.
It will be interesting if the Repub establishment starts hurling serious dirt at Trump, or if they play nice because of a fear they will end up with him as their candidate. So far, it's been pretty mild.
His success in business is well-documented and beyond dispute...
I have heard that he has declared bankruptcy, more than once.
He has already laid out some policy platforms that DEMOCRATS agree with...
Name one that doesn't have to do with tax reform.
I have heard that he has declared bankruptcy, more than once.
Actually, 4 times..
I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
-Michael Jordan
Michale
Name one that doesn't have to do with tax reform.
Name one you hate that doesn't have to do with Illegal Immigration.. :D
Michale
The Iran nuclear deal.
Now, it's your turn ... name a Trump "policy" than any sane person could support ...
Actually, Trump is FOR an Iran Deal...
He just thinks he can get a better one..
Considering his history, I don't doubt him...
Michale
Actually, Trump is FOR an Iran Deal...
He just thinks he can get a better one..
Considering his history, I don't doubt him...
Michale
Trump is against this one even though he has no idea what it is all about or how it is supposed to work.
He thinks he can get a better one. Which proves to me that he is completely delusional.
So, you still can't come up with a Trump policy that Democrats can support??
Other than the Capital Gains tax, no I cannot...
But it's going to be an interesting election... Especially if Hillary goes down in flames which is looking increasingly likely...
The fact that her IT guy is being offered immunity must have Hillary crapping in her knickers...
Michale
I just saw Hillary today defending the Iran deal at an event at Brookings and she was quite impressive.
I think that, as president, she may spearhead a very enlightened foreign policy.
Actually, there was another event at Brookings yesterday - a debate, involving Senator McCain, over how the US Congress should vote on the Iran deal.
It was informative in trying to understand where the opposition to the deal is coming from. If the opponents would present a viable alternative - one that would actually have any real prospects for success - there case against this deal would be quite a lot stronger than it actually is.
You should take a listen to both events, Michale!
Make that, their case ...
More than poll popularity, I'm looking at another indicator to determine whether Trump is making a breakout: capturing a Somebody from the Republican Establishment. Somebody with operational experience who can get aground game going, and bring in outside political operatives and big money. As far as I know, and maybe I've missed something, this has not happened. Extra points if the defector attempts to hijack Trump's message towards traditional Establishment values - and Trump buys into it.
Trump has never held any elected office, has never paid his political dues in the
Republican trenches.. When you look at Republican nominees from years past, seniority is pretty important - if not you, at least your family. I think the costs to the first Establishment Bolter would be pretty savage, just short of drawing and quartering. Trump is winning over the cannon fodder, but he needs to get some nobility behind him. Somebody who can anoint. A fixer.
Somebody with operational experience who can get aground game going, and bring in outside political operatives and big money.
Trump doesn't NEED anyone's money..
THAT'S the point...
Michale
A man vacationing in San Francisco saw a Muslim bookstore, walked in and began browsing. When the owner asked if he could help, the visitor said, “Well, do you have the book by Donald Trump about the problems caused by Muslim immigration?”
The owner answered, “OK, get the f–k out of here, and don’t ever come back, is that clear?”
The customer smiled: “Yes, that’s the one; do you have it in paperback?”
heh
Michale
HA!!!!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/253047-trump-calls-on-cnn-to-donate-debate-money-to-veterans
Trump trumps CNN!!!
I LOVE IT!!!! :D
Michale
Ya'all see??
It's EXACTLY stuff like this that makes Trump so popular..
Michale
M-24
"Trump doesn't NEED anyone's money..
THAT'S the point..."
Baloney...
A Presidential campaign is going to cost something like 5 Billion. Forbes says Trump's fortune is somewhere in that vicinity - but most of it is tied up in real estate, so his liquidity is limited. Do think he wants to stake his kids' legacies on one campaign?
How do you the fabulously rich get that way? Not by writing unnecessary checks....they use other peoples money. That's exactly how Trump get rich - by using other peoples money, he knows how the game is played. Spread the risk.
If Trump doesn't need the money, than why is he selling trinkets on the internet? Does he need a hobby? If it's just a publicity stunt, he could just dump it out of his jet for free. Trump is notoriously stingy, gives little to charity compared to his peers.
Not only does he need other peoples money, he wants it, because investors end up working to protect their investment. Knowing that he has backers gives confidence to other potential backers. It's a herd effect.
Trump charitable bequests.....
http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/08/03/if-trumps-charity-reflects-the-man/
How do you say it....other peoples money??
A Presidential campaign is going to cost something like 5 Billion.
Oh bull-puckies...
Previous campaigns were WELL below the billion dollar mark...
Not only does he need other peoples money, he wants it, because investors end up working to protect their investment. Knowing that he has backers gives confidence to other potential backers. It's a herd effect.
I understand why you would say that.. You are trying to cast Trump in a familiar mold as it is more easy to demonize him that way...
Remember all those $10,000 dollar a plate fund raisers Trump has attended???
Me neither... :D
Michale
How do you the fabulously rich get that way? Not by writing unnecessary checks....they use other peoples money. That's exactly how Trump get rich - by using other peoples money, he knows how the game is played. Spread the risk.
OK, fine...
Then list for me all the Trump Fundraisers that he has attended..
Compare and contrast that to all the fundraisers of all the other candidates, Dem and GOP...
See my point???
Trump needs to build support.. I am not arguing that...
But Trump needs to fundraise???
That's like saying god needs to go to church.. :D
Michale
M-30
:-) Well, if Trump can exaggerate his net worth by a factor of two, I can exaggerate his expenses by a like amount.
The total Prez Election of '16 is guesstimated at 5 B, so yes, 2.5 B is probably closer to what both the winning candidate's campaign will ultimately shell out. The doubling time for costs seems pretty close to 2 years.
Trump is getting a lot of free publicity right now. There is no doubt he is very good at it. But, this can't last if he keeps going into the primaries. If he runs for president he's going to have to build a national organization. I suspect top talent is going to demand top dollar. The air time is going to stop being free. At some point he will need to raise money, or start selling properties. I think he's going to want to fund raise instead. His fans won't mind. They are very forgiving.
If that's demonizing, well, so be it.
Colbert got demonized last night. It was pretty funny. Strong start.
TS and Michale,
You guys are throwing around some pretty large sums of money like it's going out of style, or something.
I'm just wondering ... do either of you think that a presidential campaign that costs a billion dollars, more or less, is a big problem for US democracy?
And, if so, what do you think can and should be done about it.
:-) Well, if Trump can exaggerate his net worth by a factor of two, I can exaggerate his expenses by a like amount.
Touche' :D
The total Prez Election of '16 is guesstimated at 5 B, so yes, 2.5 B is probably closer to what both the winning candidate's campaign will ultimately shell out. The doubling time for costs seems pretty close to 2 years.
Yea, 5 Billion amongst 25 candidates and almost 2 years...
What did Obama spend in 2012?? Less than 800 million??? People like Trump carry that on them...
"What?? $4 Million?? I think I got that on me..."
-George Wendt, SPIN CITY
:D
Trump is getting a lot of free publicity right now. There is no doubt he is very good at it. But, this can't last if he keeps going into the primaries. If he runs for president he's going to have to build a national organization. I suspect top talent is going to demand top dollar. The air time is going to stop being free. At some point he will need to raise money, or start selling properties. I think he's going to want to fund raise instead. His fans won't mind. They are very forgiving.
He is going to want to build a network.. That's a given...
But I wager we will see VERY minimal fund-raising.. Probably just enough so people feel they are part of something...
One of Trump's biggest appeals is that, unlike every other candidate, he is not out there begging for money...
Liz,
I'm just wondering ... do either of you think that a presidential campaign that costs a billion dollars, more or less, is a big problem for US democracy?
And, if so, what do you think can and should be done about it.
I agree, it's a problem..
My solution is simple..
Give every candidate an equal amount of air time and advertising. All for free..
NO OUTSIDE MONEY at all...
The problem with that is lobbyists and donors, both DEM and GOP would scream hysterically at that...
But that's the ONLY way to make it fair..
Michale
More than half of Trump's support come from women..
Would LOVE to see Democrats try that old WAR ON WOMEN schtick again... It was hilarious how last time in went down in flames..
Remember Mark Uterus?? :D heh
Michale
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-colbert-fallon-tie-821697
Hehehehehehehe..
Colbert attacks Trump in some of the most vile and disgusting ways in his premiere 1st episode of THE LATE SHOW...
Next night, his ratings plummet...
The Left just doesn't get it...
The USA is a center Right country and are sick and tired of moron liberals telling us how bad and evil our country is....
It's why you don't see a successful Left Wing version of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News or Drudge Report...
The Left will ALWAYS be second fiddle...
About the ONLY thing that the Left has that is successful is chrisweigant.com
:D
Michale
LizM [1] -
Yeah, but he seems to be "stumbling upwards" if the polls are any indication. You're right, if he becomes the nominee it's going to say quite a bit about the GOP of today.
Michale [3] -
I'm interested, have you thrown your lot in with Trump yet, or are you still keeping your options open? Do tell!
Michale [4] -
Except for, you know, the last "CEO president" we elected. His name was George W. Bush.
TheStig [7] -
All excellent points. Before I get to addressing them, I've been pondering for a while writing a column on how much of Trump's support seems to be coming from the "first-time voter" or (I swear I heard this from a friend's relative) "I haven't voted since Nixon, but I'm voting for Trump."
This could wildly swing the polls, and could also be compared to what Obama did in his two elections. OK, with that general comment out of the way, let's get to your points.
17 is a pretty big field, but that'll narrow over time. There are already at least 5 or 6 who barely register. In a few months, the race will likely clearly be between, say, 8 or fewer candidates. So this problem will correct itself over time.
Phone tech is also an issue, but the pollsters have been desperately trying to account for it for at least the past 5 years (if not 10), so they're getting a little better at it. They've got a long way to go to get back to that "representative sample" that was so easy when everyone had a landline and answered pollsters gladly, but they're at least aware of this problem.
What are the prediction markets saying about the Dem and GOP races? How's Trump doing there? That would be very interesting to hear...
altohone [10] -
The second debate is going to be a rip-snorter, that's my prediction. Trump is doing so well, the others almost HAVE to attack him. Fiorina could lead the charge, we'll see...
LizM/Michale -
Actually, although it pains me to say it, Trump is more reasonable on the Iran deal than most of the GOP field. He admits it will be a done deal by the time the next president arrives in office. The other GOPers can't quite seem to grasp this reality. Just to be scrupulously fair...
Also, Trump's (admittedly sophomoric) attitudes on getting better trade deals with other countries resonates with blue-collar Dem voters (unions, etc.). NAFTA's still an ugly word among many solid Dem voters.
Michale [19] -
Don't forget that while most pundits are likely wrong about Trump collapsing and going away, they're also likely wrong about Hillary collapsing and going away. Just something to keep in mind.
TheStig [23] -
You refer, of course, to the "invisible primary"?
:-)
That's a good point though. It could be a tipping point if an establishmentarian jumped on Trump's bandwagon.
Michale [25] -
OK, now THAT was funny! Heh... still chuckling...
:-)
Michale [31] -
But Trump needs to fundraise???
That's like saying god needs to go to church.. :D
"...and a preacher on the Old-Time Gospel Hour stealing money from the sick and the old. Well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, Mister."
-U2's Bono, "Bullet The Blue Sky"
Don't know why that seems so appropriate...
Michale [34] -
We actually (gasp!) agree on this one. Free TV time for all candidates would solve a LOT of the problems of "money in politics."
[36] -
About the ONLY thing that the Left has that is successful is chrisweigant.com
Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that point!
:-)
-CW
I'm interested, have you thrown your lot in with Trump yet, or are you still keeping your options open? Do tell!
I respect his campaign. He has touched a nerve in Americans that Democrats have long ignored and Republicans can't seem to find even with both hands and a flashlight..
But I am not sold on him yet...
Except for, you know, the last "CEO president" we elected. His name was George W. Bush.
And he was a HELLUVA lot better POTUS than Obama has been on a magnitude of 1000...
Don't forget that while most pundits are likely wrong about Trump collapsing and going away, they're also likely wrong about Hillary collapsing and going away. Just something to keep in mind.
I disagree... Pundits just don't LIKE Trump and their emotions color their judgement.. There really isn't any REASON to dislike Trump other than his arrogance... And if we disliked people for their arrogance, I would have been gone a LONG time ago!! :D
As to Hillary, there are real, tangible and legitimate reasons why her demise is probable...
Her email practices are being CRIMINALLY investigated by the FBI..
Her main IT guy is being offered immunity to talk...
Her Girl Friday is being CRIMINALLY investigated for embezzling the US State Dept...
Not to mention the TOTALLY BONEHEADED judgment of thinking it's a good idea to have the US SecState use a private insecure email server stored in some rinky-dink mom n pop's bathroom closet totally outside the secure stream of government communications...
I mean, honestly.. Ignore partisan or Party.. Would YOU trust someone with that kind of judgement??
We actually (gasp!) agree on this one. Free TV time for all candidates would solve a LOT of the problems of "money in politics."
It sure would.. But look at all the forces lined up against it..
The candidates..
The lobbyists...
The donors...
The ONLY people for something like that are the American People..
And of course, they don't matter one whit to Democrats OR Republicans..
About the ONLY thing that the Left has that is successful is chrisweigant.com
Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that point!
Now, let me rub this brown stuff off my nose.. :D
Michale
CW -"What are the prediction markets saying about the Dem and GOP races? How's Trump doing there?"
Friday morning round-up of the BetFair nomination markets, expressed as implied % probabilities = inverses of the decimal odds X 100.
Winning the Republican Nomination
Bush 35%
Rubio 15%
Trump 15%
Walker 8%
Kasich 8%
Carson 6%
Fiorina 5%
Cruz 4%
Huckabee 4%
Christie 2%
The difference between back and lay positions is notably high in the Republican field today.... arbitrage opportunities
All others DOA
Winning Democratic Nomination
Clinton 65%
Sanders 13%
Biden 13%
I'm going to start spread sheeting these numbers, 'cause Betfair tracking is mysterious about the time line. The old Intrade market was much better.
Quick notes: Hillary has been quite stable in spite of all the press chatter. She's slipped about 5% over the last month or so.
LadBrokes generally agrees closely with Betfair, Ladbrokes operates as a traditional bookmaking establishment (not a futures market). Ladbrokes and Betfair are merging as we speak...probably not a good thing.
Liz 33
The good news is the ever increasing costs of running for office are probably a diminishing return. The bad news is the graft has poisoned US politics AND is embedded in constitutional concrete. Sorry about the mixed metaphor...
What can be done:
Supreme Court rethinks past rulings? Voters miraculously get more demanding and more discerning? Move to another country? Which one?
the world of political punditry heaves a collective sigh of relief because, according to the calendar they use, ...
Did you get yourself an exemption?
do either of you think that a presidential campaign that costs a billion dollars, more or less, is a big problem for US democracy?
It's still a little low. There are roughly three hundred million Americans, but only about a hundred million or so vote. (There's a problem already.) To sustain an ongoing discourse over the period of a campaign, ideally the various people and organizations involved in the campaign should be doing the equivalent of providing several issues of a large newspaper or a quality magazine to each voter. An issue of a newspaper or magazine costs anywhere from a couple dollars to ten or so. A hundred million voters times ten dollars per voter would be a billion dollars.
The problem is the advantage of big money over small money.
There's more small money around, potentially. If everyone were involved in politics, most of them could easily spend ten bucks on several occasions during a campaign, and a few could give a little extra to cover the costs for those who couldn't afford it.
Big money, meanwhile, is pretty much all-in already. There are more cost-effective ways of influencing policy than campaign contributions: hiring lobbyists; "hiring" ex-legislators for lucrative "consulting" gigs if they cooperated with you while in office, thereby making clear to current legislators what incentives they face; and similarly "hiring" close associates of legislators who don't seem convinced that you'll be around to provide any payoffs by the time they retire. If those became less advantageous, more money could shift into campaign donations. But as long as those alternatives are there, I don't think there's a lot of room for big-money campaign donations to increase.
But small money is difficult and expensive to organize, and it needs a lot of organization to do so.
dsws,
The problem is the advantage of big money over small money.
That wasn't anywhere close to being a determining factor in the last couple of California gubernatorial contests where small money soundly defeated very, very big money.
Why do you think big money didn't matter one iota here?
The problem of big money in politics IS a problem, there is no doubt..
But it's a problem that will NEVER be addressed because it's used as a PARTISAN issue..
The Left whines and complains about "big money" in politics, but they refuse to clean their own house..
The Citizens United ruling is a perfect example..
The Right simply ignores the issue...
Michale