GOP Race Overview -- Carly Falls Back
It's been a few weeks, so it's time once again to take a peek at the Republican presidential primary race. There are new polls out today, and the most interesting thing about them is the reflection of the public's reaction to the first Democratic debate. I'll be writing about the Democratic side of things in the next few days (never fear), but for today I thought the Republicans were worth a quick look, seeing as how they'll be debating again next Wednesday.
There have been several changes in the polling in the past few weeks, although no dramatic overall shift in the way the structure of the race is shaping up. There are still, for instance, six frontrunners capable of polling above five percent -- the same six as last time. There are still four reliably polling above one percent but below five percent -- again, the same four. And the same five are polling below one percent with no chance whatsoever.
However, there have indeed been changes in the polling and the candidates' rankings. There are really four divisions in the relative support for the Republican field, not just three. The six at the top have cleanly separated into a frontrunner group (able to poll above 15 percent), and a wannabe-frontrunners group, polling between five and 10 (or, to be generous, 11) percent.
Let's start at the bottom of the rankings and work our way up. As always, these numbers are rolling poll averages taken from the Real Clear Politics Republican nomination tracking page. All references to "the last time we took a look" refer to the poll standings on October 4th, which were the most recent when I last wrote about the subject. I've labeled the groups according to what sort of chance they have for winning the Republican nomination.
No chance
There's really not much to say about this bunch (other than: "Oh, is he still in the race?"), so we'll just list them and move quickly on. Polling below a single percent are: Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore. They all have virtually no chance at the GOP nomination.
Slim chance
There was a lot of movement within the group of candidates who are still nurturing a slim chance of being the nominee. It's probably not significant movement, because they're all still stuck in exactly the same range: desperately trying to top four percent. Mike Huckabee improved his standing from eighth place to seventh, moving up in the polls from 2.8 to 3.8 percent. Rand Paul also showed slight upward movement in the polls, from 2.4 percent to 3.6 percent, moving him from tenth place overall into eighth place. Chris Christie stayed even after his numbers moved down a bit, then back up a bit. His polling is currently at 2.4 percent, and he's still in ninth place.
The only news that may have some degree of significance in this group is the continuing fall of John Kasich. Kasich was supposed to ride in as a white knight to save the Republican Party's vision of moderate governance, but like Jon Huntsman before him, no amount of pundit-love could sell this to the actual voters. He got somewhat of a bounce earlier on, but he fell all the way from seventh place down to tenth this time around, as his polling slipped from 3.1 percent down to 2.0 percent. Kasich is even in danger of crossing over from the "Slim chance" crowd down to "No chance." But this may be overstating the case -- everyone in the "Slim chance" group has moved around between 2.0 percent and 3.8 percent, which isn't all that statistically meaningful.
Decent chance
This is where all of the action is taking place, including a story that the media have so far been ignoring. There are four Republican candidates who could benefit if the two neophyte frontrunners ever do actually fall in the polls. One of these candidates moved noticeably upwards in the past few weeks, and one of them saw an even more dramatic fall. Taking them in the order they now hold in the race (from top to bottom):
Marco Rubio is currently in third place in the Republican race, behind only Donald Trump and Ben Carson. However, his rise from fourth place to third didn't really have much to do with any increased support he's now getting. In fact, his recent numbers are down. Rubio got a bump after the debates, which topped out right around 10 percent. But he then held onto this gain for a goodly amount of time. He hit a high of 10.3 percent, but has fallen sharply back in the most recent round of polling, down to 8.8 percent. If he can reverse this trend, he's still in pretty good shape heading into the third debate. To be truly competitive with the two frontrunners, though, he'd have to roughly double the support he's now got, which is a pretty tall order.
Ted Cruz has moved upwards in both the polls and the standings. His numbers have been getting steadily better, up from 6.1 percent to 8.4 percent now. This has moved him from sixth place to fourth overall. Of all the candidates outside the frontrunner ranks, Cruz has had seen the biggest recent gains. However, Cruz will be facing some looming congressional deadlines in the next month, so his standing with the Republican base could either rise or fall depending on what Cruz does. If he filibusters everything, will it help him or hurt him? We're about to find out, in all likelihood. One last thing worth noting about Cruz is that he's getting very close to Marco Rubio (less than half a point separates them). If Rubio doesn't turn around his recent slide, and if Cruz continues slowly upwards, Cruz will take possession of third place very soon.
Jeb Bush still sits in fifth place, after briefly holding fourth place for a few days (due to other candidates' movements upward and downward). Jeb hasn't completely reversed his long slide in the polls, but he did improve in a minor way during the past few weeks. Unfortunately for him, he then dropped back down again. Last time we wrote, Bush was at 8.3 percent and now he's at only 7.0 percent. No wonder Bush donors are reportedly getting very nervous -- they're not getting much return on their investment, to put it mildly.
The real news from this group, though, is the story the media have almost entirely missed: the collapse of Carly Fiorina's debate bump. Fiorina had the worst two weeks of any of the Republican candidates, and yet somehow it isn't newsworthy (this is surprising, considering the way her rise was breathlessly covered). I've always been a little skeptical about how overstated Carly's rise was in the first place, and now it seems it was nothing more than an illusory bump in public opinion. Now, this bump happened after the second debate, so Fiorina could see another such swell of support if she does well in the third debate. Who knows? Stranger things have happened. But by the numbers, Fiorina is currently struggling. She fell all the way from third place to sixth place, and fully half of her support disappeared. Her high point was 11.8 percent, and now she's only polling at 5.6 percent. That's a pretty steep decline. If she falls much further, she might soon wind up in the "Slim chance" group with Huckabee, Paul, Christie, and Kasich. Have GOP base voters had enough of Carly? Or will she bump back up after another debate?
The two trendlines from this group are Cruz going up, and Fiorina falling down. Rubio made it into third place not because he gained in the polls, but because Carly disappeared from in front of him. Cruz has jumped up to fourth place, but he'd be in fifth place if Carly hadn't fallen.
If the pundits who still cling to "Trump and Carson will inevitably collapse" thinking (with no actual indication of this happening any time soon) are eventually proven right, then the race for third and fourth place takes on new importance. Look for a whole lot of strenuous attacks between Rubio, Cruz, Bush, and Fiorina at the upcoming debate, as they all vie to lead the second tier of Republican candidates.
Great chance
This brings us to the real frontrunners of the race, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Both candidates had fallen back in the polling, but both have now recovered to some degree and are on an upward trajectory once again, confounding conventional political wisdom once again.
Donald Trump was down to 22.8 percent a few weeks ago, but he is now back up to 26.2 percent. He is still leading the pack, but not so comfortably as he used to, as Carson is now noticeably nipping at his heels. Trump, of late, seems to be growing into being an actual candidate, and is a lot more sober and serious in his recent interviews. He, quite rightly, pointed out that George W. Bush was indeed president on 9/11, much to Jeb's annoyance, but Trump hasn't been quite as bombastic as he used to towards his fellow candidates. This may all change in the next debate, of course.
As time goes on, more and more of the inside-the-Beltway set is realizing that Trump could actually win the Republican nomination, as they come out of their self-induced haze of belief that "sooner or later Trump will say something so ridiculous it'll kill his chances." Trump keeps on saying ridiculous things, and it just doesn't matter in the polling. Jeb Bush's campaign is in almost complete collapse, as he struggles to even stay in fifth place. This obviously wasn't the way things were supposed to work out, according to inside-the-Beltway wisdom.
Trump had a slide in the polls. That slide ended, and then he hit a plateau. Over the past few weeks, though, Trump's numbers have been headed back up. Even at his lowest, he never fell below 20 percent -- a level of support most of the Republicans in the race would kill for, at this point. Trump's not going anywhere, and even the Beltway-wisdom crowd is finally beginning to realize it.
Ben Carson has been doing even better in the past few weeks than Trump. When Trump's numbers took a slide last month, Carson's also did. But just like Trump, Carson hit a plateau and has risen in the past few weeks even faster than Trump -- from 17.3 percent up to 21.2 percent. That's a hefty four-point jump upwards -- something no other GOP candidate can claim. Carson now regularly sees individual polls where he's only a few points behind Trump (and even one poll that put him on top, although it was likely just a statistical anomaly). Again, nobody else has managed to do this.
Carson likely benefited from Carly Fiorina's fall. The three frontrunners were all outsiders, and when one of them falls it's probably a pretty safe bet that their voters will move to one of the other outsiders, at least at first.
Carson will likely make an inviting target for the other Republican candidates in the upcoming debate. Trump, as everyone has learned, is almost impossible to attack directly in a debate setting. But undermining Carson would also be to everyone's benefit, in the same way that Carly Fiorina's fall in the polls has benefited all the second-tier Republicans (and, in terms of actual voter support, likely benefited Cruz, Carson, and Trump to some degree or another).
The picture of the overall GOP field hasn't changed too dramatically in the past few weeks, but if Carly Fiorina loses any more support we could be on the brink of that happening. If Fiorina continues to collapse, either the ranks of those with a solid possibility to win the nomination will shrink to five, or perhaps one of the candidates hovering below five percent will move up to take her place. For now, though, it's looking like the Republican nominee will be one of the current top five candidates: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Offtopic: though regarding politics as a sporting event is not the best use of a 330M+ person democracy commanding the world's largest military, you gotta admire the gamesmanship in Sen. Reid offering his endorsement of Rep. Ryan this afternoon.
Spkr. Boehner must be saying "Thanks, Harry. Really appreciate your help there, guy."
As a Dem, I think I'd like to see Cruz get the nod in the end -- he's just so slimy. I cannot see him attracting people beyond his lunatic base -- if Trump goes down I don't think Trump fans will like Cruz. They may have to swallow him but I think their enthusiasm will be snuffed out and a lot of them will stay home on election day. Plus Cruz would hand so much good stuff to Dems for attacking. Go Ted!
I'd also like to see some kind of brokered convention -- if no one can pull a serious majority and the party has to force a choice there will be more metaphorical bloodshed. Good times.
"Fiorina had the worst two weeks of any of the Republican candidates, and yet somehow it isn't newsworthy (this is surprising, considering the way her rise was breathlessly covered)."
The prediction markets Betfair and PredictIt detected Fioriana's collapse by Sept 14, roughly 5 weeks ago (how time flies). Both markets show a rather remarkable re-ordering of the Republican nomination field:
Marco Rubio has taken the lead, with a roughly 27% probability of securing the nomination (trending up) to Bush's p =
-continued, unknown glitch working multiple screens..
...Bush's p=17%, trending down. Trump is third, basically flat around 15%, albeit with a lot of noise in the signal. Carson is in the the fourth position, with about a 7% chance of nomination, trending up. Cruz is 5th at about p=5%, also trending up.
Clinton's post-debate probabilities have seen a sustained bounce to roughly p of nomination = 75%, very near to her all time high of about 80%. Biden has recovered after his post-debate slump to about p=17%, Sanders has leveled off around 13% following a bit of a slump from roughly where Biden used to be. Will his sudden uptick play into Biden's calculus? Does he want to take on 60 million dollars worth of debt to get in for the long haul? Web saw the writing on the wall, O'Mally and Chafee should clear the field as well.
Trump's not going anywhere, and even the Beltway-wisdom crowd is finally beginning to realize it.
Who could have possibly predicted this!??
Oh... wait.. :D
On a completely unrelated note....
Has anyone seen Marty McFly around?? :D
Michale
On a sad note..
Lt Kevin Riley has passed away...
A somber rendition of I'LL TAKE YOU HOME AGAIN, KATHLEEN is wholly appropriate...
Michale
Hay TS,
This made me think of you.. :D
Why are we so confident, especially when opinion poll data now gives Hillary Clinton the edge over most Republican opponents? The simple answer is that we’re relying on models, not polls.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/14/forget-what-you-saw-last-night-two-simple-reasons-a-republican-is-likely-to-win-in-2016/
Your thoughts??
Michale
M-7
450 elections from 35 countries over how many years? Generalized to the U.S. in 2016? Poll driven to boot! My thoughts are leaning towards voodoo model. Electoral College? Gerrymandering? Only a few states decide the outcome? Demographic tides? These factors are vital and very USA specific.
I wouldn't say it's "poll driven"... yes, approval polls are a factor, but ONLY a factor..
Electoral College? Gerrymandering?
Yes, those are pluses that favor Democrats.. AKA Gaming The System...
But do they overcome the historical factors??
I must also point out (was going to use "constrained" but... constrained myself. yuk yuk yuk) that, according to the Left Wingery, "Voter Suppression" {sic} heavily favors the GOP..
I just thought it interesting that this study uses MODELS and not polls..
Something you have advocated extensively...
Michale
Happy BACK TO THE FUTURE DAY everyone!! :D
Michale
M-9
Here is what I have advocated:
Forecasts based on multiple methodologies, roughly speaking polls, expert opinion, and prediction markets, all weighted by track record at various points in the election process.
Use of multiple polls,adjusted for sampling bias. Outright rejection of shoddy polls.
Caution in interpreting horse race polls,especially early in an election cycle.
A preference for predictions stated as probability of occurrence, as opposed to simple sampling error.
Well awww right.. :D
I just find it somewhat funny that your forecasts always seems to favor Democrats.. :D
Surely there are some *legitimate* forecasts/polls/opinions/predictions that favor Republicans..
No???
I am not saying this to be an asshole... (well not MUCH anyways.. :D)
But you have to admit that if ALL the methodology one relies on points to a specific Party with NO variation whatsoever....
Such methodology would be suspect...
Speaking logically I mean..
Michale
But you have to admit that if ALL the methodology one relies on points to a specific Party with NO variation whatsoever....
Such methodology would be suspect...
More accurately, the person who is applying the methodology would have some biases (biasii?? biasiums???) that said person fails to take into account...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Why are we so confident, especially when opinion poll data now gives Hillary Clinton the edge over most Republican opponents? The simple answer is that we’re relying on models, not polls."
You didn't ask, but my thought would be this. The USA is one of the few countries in the world to elect a President independent of Congress. Most of the other democracies in the world, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.; have parliaments and Prime Ministers instead, where the government rises or falls depending on how much support it has in the legislature, and where elections can also be called at any time, and are not necessarily on any set schedule. So how can they include them in any model with the USA and expect to get something that would be accurate in predicting American results?
Michale wrote:
"Why are we so confident, especially when opinion poll data now gives Hillary Clinton the edge over most Republican opponents? The simple answer is that we’re relying on models, not polls."
Technically, I didn't write that, but no biggie. :D
You didn't ask, but my thought would be this. The USA is one of the few countries in the world to elect a President independent of Congress. Most of the other democracies in the world, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.; have parliaments and Prime Ministers instead, where the government rises or falls depending on how much support it has in the legislature, and where elections can also be called at any time, and are not necessarily on any set schedule. So how can they include them in any model with the USA and expect to get something that would be accurate in predicting American results?
I am assuming that's a rhetorical question because I haven't the faintest idea..
Knuckle-dragging ground-pounder, remember?? :D
Michale
I have a question for everyone. If Donald Trump does become the Republican nominee, would conservative evangelicals vote for him? Or establishment Republicans for that matter? If they can't vote for Cruz or Bush, would they rather just sit home? Would that hand the Democrats a win in the Presidency and the House as well?
Michale wrote:
"Technically, I didn't write that, but no biggie. :D"
My apologies. Maybe I should have more accurately said that you posted it. :-D
Also sad to hear about the passing of "Kevin Riley", Bruce Hyde.
M-12
"I just find it somewhat funny that your forecasts always seems to favor Democrats.. :D"
Probably seems that way...but I've really made few few election predictions:
2012: Obama 60%:40% Romney
2014: R. Senate Majority 60%:40% D: Senate Majority
Michale wrote:
"Knuckle-dragging ground-pounder, remember?? :D"
Aww Michale, when did that ever stop you? I thought you had an opinion on everything. :-D
TS,
Probably seems that way...but I've really made few few election predictions:
2012: Obama 60%:40% Romney
2014: R. Senate Majority 60%:40% D: Senate Majority
I stand corrected..
Although I seem to recall you saying that the Democrats were going to retain the Senate....
I could be wrong. Been known to happen..
JM,
Aww Michale, when did that ever stop you? I thought you had an opinion on everything. :-D
Touche' :D
Michale
JM,
Also sad to hear about the passing of "Kevin Riley", Bruce Hyde.
Yea, one of the more colorful crewmembers...
He was featured prominently in the Trek books..... Rounded out his character quite nicely.. :D
FLAG FULL OF STARS and AVENGER come to mind...
Michale
Biden has declined to run. I can see why he might make that decision, but I wish he hadn't. A Biden Sanders Clinton face off would have been good for the Democratic Party and the eventual nominee.
VP JOE BIDEN SAYS HE WILL NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_BIDEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-10-21-12-28-43
Well, I'll be deeped in sheet....
I was wrong...
Well, the silver lining is that the GOP winning the POTUS'ency is all but assured...
Michale
has anyone read this wapo article about the simpsons predicting trump as president? perhaps it's already been discussed and i'm late to the party...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/the-simpsons-predicted-president-trump-way-back-in-2000/
of course, the upside is that if this prediction comes true then maybe the president after that would be lisa simpson. now THAT would be epic.
JL
@Michale [#10], @nypoet22 [#24]
Do you recall anything in BTTF-2 about who was President then? Be funny if there was a quick thing in the background showing someone like Mr. Trump as president (can't recall if he was really known of as much back then).
The Clintons weren't yet really known of (outside AK). Can't imagine anyone that we'd expect now being featured.
Still, it'd be something if there was...
@TheStig [#11]
I assume predictions in 80s movies and long-running TV cartoons don't cross the convincing methodology threshold?
Oh well, back to the present...
@Elizabeth Miller
I'm sure you're disappointed by the VP Biden's news. Not a huge surprise, but still having it said out loud removes any hope you had. Sorry.
Not sure that I would have voted for him, but I'm also not the biggest fan of SOS Clinton, so would have liked to see the primary shook up a little.
Speaking of disruption...
The Republican field aggressively resists letting their national party (i.e., establishment) lock down the preferred candidate too early. Maybe not this cycle, but the Democrats are risking the same dynamic. Between their treatment of Biden and the other candidates in the debate (I would have liked to hear more from besides the two front runners), we risk losing the opportunity to bring in good, visionary centrists to run (as we had when then-Sen. Obama ran in '08).
With current campaign finance laws, the electoral college, and an entrenched if not institutionalized two-party system, the deck is already stacked against someone who can cross boundaries between the national parties (not that that's particularly new).
Saying so out loud may cost me my blue jersey credentials, but having Mr. Trump now being taken more seriously in the race helps disrupt the ideological ruts we seem to be in. Not in the ways I'd like perhaps, but still disruption in and of itself can be good. Creative destruction one might say.
Most people suggest Sen. Sanders when they say this, but can you imagine Trump vs. Sen. Webb in the general? I think both parties, and their adherents, would have some serious self-reflection to address if that ticket attracted voters.
Still, most of the voters aren't really paying attention to the race yet. All these polls about who is doing well, they're mostly reflecting what the wonks and the rabid say with some debate reaction sprinkled in just to stir it up (which is part of why polls this early are so unreliable). The average voter likely just looks at the top two or three candidates in the polls when it's time to decide and chooses among them to see who might be acceptable -- you know, like a buying a washing machine based on consumer ratings.
If Republicans find a way to push him aside, maybe Trump and Webb will join forces for an independent run...
In that case, it would probably be Sen. Rubio for the Republicans, almost certainly Clinton for the Democrats, and then Trump/Webb as the third party. Trump would probably tack more to center (like many politicians and marketing professionals, I suspect he expresses the views that help him win, not because they're particularly dearly held). That'd be something to see.
And it's not wholly obvious to me that the votes siphoned off would only come from one party. The individual parties would then be left to more strongly pander to their base if they are to differentiate themselves from that independent ticket with both an R and a D that don't tow their parties' respective lines.
Then again, maybe I've had too much tea today...
Mopshell,
For the record..
You were right...
I was wrong.. :D
Michale
RD,
Do you recall anything in BTTF-2 about who was President then? Be funny if there was a quick thing in the background showing someone like Mr. Trump as president (can't recall if he was really known of as much back then).
Nothing comes to mind...
I DO recall Doc Brown saying, "The justice system moves swiftly now that we have abolished all lawyers"
So, that might give us a hint as to what happened to the Clintons.. :D
Michale
RD,
It's been said that if the GOP can take Ohio and Florida, they are a shoe-in to win the general...
A Bush/Rubio and Kasich ticket might guarantee that..
Your thoughts??
Michale
@Michale [#28]
In case you didn't see it, there's this set of BTTF-related political ads for your amusement.
RD,
That BERNIE FOR THE FUTURE one is hilarious!!
I have always said that Sanders is a dead ringer for Doc Brown.. :D
Michale
@Michale [#29]
Shoo-in? I rarely believe in shoo-ins (maybe Pres. Bush '43 vs. Sen. Kerry?). I tend to look at the electoral college maps that use various methodologies of polling data such as Princeton's or the Votemaster. Until we're much closer, any predictions now would be wildly speculative (and so why those sites don't update yet).
Still, my gut says the GOP will need more than OH and FL to pull off a general election win. My first assumption is that the 2014 results are not indicative of the 2016 likely results because of the different electorate populations attracted. Also, 2016 is an open year where there is no incumbent as there was in 2012, so using 2012 is problematic. Still, with political polarization there are only a few swing states, like OH and FL, likely in play.
The GOP immediately gets 158 electoral votes out of the 270 needed from the states that are sure to go red. They probably get another 33 without trying very hard (total = 191 EVs, 79 more to go). So far I'm just looking at 2012's strong and fairly-strong red states and assuming they haven't changed too much.
The other thing to note is that the difference between Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney in 2012 was 126 EVs, suggesting that Romney did less well than he probably could have if he was a different Republican candidate (yes, I know, a big leap of logic I made right there -- you get what you pay for), so we'll stick with finding 79.
FL and OH together are 47 EVs, so the GOP would still be short by 32 EVs. To find another 32, they'd reasonably look to several states, but VA (13), CO (9), and NV (6) are certainly doable. Remember, CO doesn't have a marijuana-legalization initiative this time so very likely it could light up red in 2016. Still, that leaves 4 more EVs which could be reached with any of several states.
Now that analysis was based mostly on Obama and Romney in 2012, which has some significant distinctions. Obama tended to energize his voters well, whereas, say, Kerry, did not back in 2004. Personally, my gut is Ms. Clinton is closer to Kerry than Obama in how well she'll inspire Democrats to turn out. On the other hand, she won't have the same high unemployment rate as we still had in 2012 and won't have the hysterics over a then-as-yet unimplemented Obamacare hanging over her head. More likely, state voting rights in Republican controlled states will have the most to do with whether some states vote more Republican, esp. with the high profile case coming to the Supreme Court this year.
Obviously, while I'm predicting Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and so can focus on her there, I'm pretty handicapped in knowing who will be the Republican candidate and how well they are likely to inspire voters. I am also not familiar with the state by state initiatives and referendums that may come up and possibly attract/repel voters.
If it wasn't for that court case, I'd probably assume the same overall red-to-blue state contours as we had in 2012 just because of the rigidity in our present polarization -- people are locked in their corners pretty hard right now. But that case is a wild card. Texas is pretty affected, but the real issue is how does it change the conversation and the attempts in state legislatures to react to a ruling. If the Supreme Court says no and you count everyone to determine EVs, then I think nothing much changes and you'd plain need more than OH and FL to go Republican for that nominee to win.
If the Supreme Court upends the present system of determining EVs from that case this year, I'm sure the prescribed remedy would not take effect until the next census at the earliest but it sure would embolden legislative actions earlier that could have a strong effect. In that case, I just don't have an opinion.
We'll also get renewed talk about the winner-take-all approach that states use in awarding EVs (probably in February is when that particular conversation will start to grow I imagine). Nothing much prevents a legislature from enacting it should they want to, so that could throw a pretty good wrinkle in it too. Even a solid blue state could go pretty red pretty fast if EVs were to be done proportionately.
There are a lot of variables, way too many to do without a real agent-based simulation (i.e., more complicated than the linear ones usually done though Princeton's statistical one works very well). Having said that, most of the rigorous and independent models for predicting EV outcomes (Silver, Princeton, Votemaster, etc.) have been pretty close and pretty close to each other, so they're doing well with that approach. Next spring, I'm sure I'll be refreshing those darn websites like I'm watching Sunday football scores. Talk about going on a wonkabout.
Anyway, those are some of my (admittedly amateur) thoughts such as they are.
- Richard
@Michale [#29]
A Bush/Rubio and Kasich ticket might guarantee that.
Sorry, I didn't respond to your specific proposal.
As far as I can see, Jeb Bush is the Republican's Kerry this year. Republicans would stay home and Clinton would win. Hands down, not worried.
Sen. Rubio OTOH is much more likely to be successful. I agree with @CW that Kasich is this year's Jon Huntsman and so will never be interesting enough to bring onto a ticket to attract voters. However, having Rubio at the top of the ticket, perhaps with Cruz (cover the right flank while veering back to center) is probably far more inspiring of a ticket to drive voters to the polls.
Given that I think Clinton is less inspiring (not quite Kerry, but no Obama -- or Sanders -- or Warren), a Rubio/Cruz ticket could be formidable and possible pull those states that I wrote of in my last long post.
Still, the road is tilted against the GOP to win the EV battle and several things would have to break their way.
Richard
@Michale [#31]
Great Scott!
I'm sure you're disappointed by the VP Biden's news. Not a huge surprise, but still having it said out loud removes any hope you had. Sorry. Not sure that I would have voted for him, but I'm also not the biggest fan of SOS Clinton, so would have liked to see the primary shook up a little.
Thanks very much for that, Richard. I appreciate it.
Actually, I would have been extremely surprised by a decision to enter the race. I never expected another Biden run for the presidency, especially so since he took on the role of an extremely active vice president.
I'm disappointed only because I think Biden would have make the Democratic nomination process much more informative and enlightening with far more candor and being real about what the issues are and how to address them.
But, alas, the American people have never been ready for Joe Biden and I have resigned myself to the knowledge that they never will be. There are many reasons for that and I don't want to get into any of them, anymore.
At least we know that he won't be silent and I believe he will continue to be a strong voice for the promise of America for as long as he is able. And, I, for one, will be eternally grateful for all that he has contributed thus far and for all that he will continue to do.
Joe Biden is a real rarity in the field of politics and personifies statesmanship and public service. All Americans should be rightly proud.
@Elizabeth Miller [#35]
I'm disappointed only because I think Biden would have make the Democratic nomination process much more informative and enlightening with far more candor and being real about what the issues are and how to address them.
Yes, I agree very much that he would have. He still can. He has little left to lose. He's as much of a lame duck now as Pres. Obama is, a freeing prospect, and like the President, he'll want to go out having done as much as he can.
But, alas, the American people have never been ready for Joe Biden and I have resigned myself to the knowledge that they never will be. There are many reasons for that and I don't want to get into any of them, anymore.
I want to respect your last sentence, but still would like to understand. So I'll ask this way: if there was something that could be done at a local level to improve citizenry and meaningful engagement, what do you imagine it might be (or am I off-track of your intent)? What do you think might have to change to help make America closer to be ready for the sort of conversation you are after?
I tend to think in terms of context than personalities, so am biased to thinking it might be less about Joe Biden the candidate and more about the culture that would make his candidacy probable. I also am interested in concrete, possible things. That's why i ask.
So I'll ask this way: if there was something that could be done at a local level to improve citizenry and meaningful engagement, what do you imagine it might be (or am I off-track of your intent)?
If they would stop listening to the media/blogosphere/punditocracy, then that would be a good start.
The media, throughout his illustrious career as visionary statesman and tireless public servant, have promulgated a decidedly asinine storyline on Biden that has very successfully caricatured him as an old Washington insider who is nothing more than a blowhard and gaffe-making machine to the point where too many Americans cannot take him seriously as a candidate for high public office.
I thought this would change substantially for the better after eight years as vice president. But, based on the superficial media coverage of his long awaited decision and public reaction to it, I remain convinced, sadly, that this change in perception was not to be.
And, that is why I would have been very surprised if Biden had decided to put himself and his family through another presidential campaign that voters would ultimately reject.
@Elizabeth Miller [#37]
Thank you.
You're very welcome!
RD,
re: 34
:D heh
If the Supreme Court upends the present system of determining EVs from that case this year, I'm sure the prescribed remedy would not take effect until the next census at the earliest but it sure would embolden legislative actions earlier that could have a strong effect. In that case, I just don't have an opinion.
Yea, that's an interesting case before the SCOTUS.. I can see the logic of the issue.. You??
Overall, your position is well-thought out, logical and completely rational...
Harkens back to the CW of yore... :D
I just wish we could get to the General.. Since I can't participate, primaries hold no interest for me..
On the other hand, the drip drip drip of Hillary's slow torture is definitely amusing.. :D
Michale
Live your 'Back to the Future' dreams with Ford's $1.21M flux capacitor
http://outbr.in/OpiT#http://mashable.com/2015/10/16/ford-flux-capacitor/#vxpvDGVrN5qs
I want it! :D
Michale
RD,
Do you recall anything in BTTF-2 about who was President then? Be funny if there was a quick thing in the background showing someone like Mr. Trump as president (can't recall if he was really known of as much back then).
Ask and ye shall receive... :D
In an interview with the Daily Beast, the movie’s writer, Bob Gale, added his own excitement to Wednesday when he lobbed a bit of a political bomb: In “Back to the Future Part II,” Biff Tannen—the movie’s oafish, tireless, and very loud villain—was loosely based on current GOP poll leader and presidential candidate Donald Trump.
“We thought about it when we made the movie! Are you kidding?” he said. “You watch Part II again and there’s a scene where Marty confronts Biff in his office and there’s a huge portrait of Biff on the wall behind Biff, and there’s one moment where Biff kind of stands up and he takes exactly the same pose as the portrait? Yeah.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/22/the_biff_tannen_presidency_128499.html
:D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"It's been said that if the GOP can take Ohio and Florida, they are a shoe-in to win the general...
A Bush/Rubio and Kasich ticket might guarantee that..
Your thoughts??"
Again, you didn't ask me. But I actually live in Florida, so I will give you my general impression. The feeling I get is that Florida is "DONE" with both Bush and Rubio, and that neither one of them could carry the state at this point.
Also, right now, the fastest growing group of voters at the moment in Florida are Puerto Ricans moving to the mainland from the island into the crucial central corridor between Tampa and (around) Orlando. The Puerto Rican community votes heavily Democratic and would not automatically support someone of Cuban background like either Rubio or Cruz, just because they are generally Hispanic or Latino.
Rdnewman wrote:
"The GOP immediately gets 158 electoral votes out of the 270 needed from the states that are sure to go red."
And the DEM immediately get 192 electoral votes out of the 270 needed from the states that are sure to go blue. They also could get at least another 31 without trying too hard themselves. That would leave them with only 47 more EV to go, as opposed to the GOP's 79.
Despite Michale's pronouncements, we are still far more likely to have another DEM President rather than a GOP one, despite Hillary's e-mail controversy. (Which, like Sander's said, I think most Americans are already tired of hearing about and really aren't concerned all that much with.)
Again, you didn't ask me. But I actually live in Florida,
Me too!! :D America's Oldest City
so I will give you my general impression.
General impress away!!
Both Bush and Rubio are very popular in the majority of the state..
Also, right now, the fastest growing group of voters at the moment in Florida are Puerto Ricans moving to the mainland from the island into the crucial central corridor between Tampa and (around) Orlando. The Puerto Rican community votes heavily Democratic and would not automatically support someone of Cuban background like either Rubio or Cruz, just because they are generally Hispanic or Latino.
Which would make a difference if Puerto Ricans are legally able to vote in Presidential General Elections..
The ONLY way that Puerto Ricans can vote Democrat is if they do so illegally..
Now, if you want to concede that the Democrat Party will HELP these illegal voters commit their crime..... :D
By all means.. Make that case... :D
Despite Michale's pronouncements, we are still far more likely to have another DEM President rather than a GOP one, despite Hillary's e-mail controversy. (Which, like Sander's said, I think most Americans are already tired of hearing about and really aren't concerned all that much with.)
Only Democrats are tired of hearing about it..
The fact that Hillary's poll numbers have DROPPED like a rock AND the fact that over 60% of Americans would use the word "LIAR" to describe Hillary Clinton proves that the vast majority of Americans ARE paying attention...
The problem with ya'all's predictions is that they only count the good things for Hillary and ignore all the bad things..
This country has NEVER elected a new POTUS from the same Party as the incumbent when the incumbent's approval rating was below 50%..
NEVER.. EVER... NOT ONCE....
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Which would make a difference if Puerto Ricans are legally able to vote in Presidential General Elections..
The ONLY way that Puerto Ricans can vote Democrat is if they do so illegally.."
WOW Michale!!! How can you be so MISINFORMED????
You do KNOW that Puerto Ricans ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS by BIRTH, RIGHT??? Even on the island, they are still CITIZENS. The ONLY thing they have to do to be able to vote for PRESIDENT, is to move from the island to an existing state. THAT'S ALL.
You do KNOW that Puerto Ricans ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS by BIRTH, RIGHT??? Even on the island, they are still CITIZENS. The ONLY thing they have to do to be able to vote for PRESIDENT, is to move from the island to an existing state. THAT'S ALL.
Sorry, JM...
Under this form of government, Puerto Rico residents are recognized as U.S. citizens, but they don't pay federal income taxes and they cannot vote in presidential elections.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/puerto-rico-and-the-general-election/
Your normal MO when proven wrong is to just ignore it.. You did that with the Australia Gun Confiscation issue..
Would it kill you to concede the point and admit you are wrong?? :D
Michale
You do KNOW that Puerto Ricans ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS by BIRTH, RIGHT??? Even on the island, they are still CITIZENS. The ONLY thing they have to do to be able to vote for PRESIDENT, is to move from the island to an existing state. THAT'S ALL.
Sorry, JM...
Under this form of government, Puerto Rico residents are recognized as U.S. citizens, but they don't pay federal income taxes and they cannot vote in presidential elections.
Your normal MO when proven wrong is to just ignore it.. You did that with the Australia Gun Confiscation issue..
Would it kill you to concede the point and admit you are wrong?? :D
Michale
You do KNOW that Puerto Ricans ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS by BIRTH, RIGHT??? Even on the island, they are still CITIZENS. The ONLY thing they have to do to be able to vote for PRESIDENT, is to move from the island to an existing state. THAT'S ALL.
http://sjfm.us/temp/cw-commentary8.jpg
Your normal MO when proven wrong is to just ignore it.. You did that with the Australia Gun Confiscation issue..
Would it kill you to concede the point and admit you are wrong?? :D
Michale
The Puerto Rican community votes heavily Democratic and would not automatically support someone of Cuban background like either Rubio or Cruz, just because they are generally Hispanic or Latino.
Why not??
The black community automatically supported someone with a black background...
Blood is thicker than water...
Michale
But, hay.. If you want to make a wager on which way FL swings in the General, I'm game.. :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Your normal MO when proven wrong is to just ignore it.. You did that with the Australia Gun Confiscation issue..
Would it kill you to concede the point and admit you are wrong?? :D"
NO, because I am NOT WRONG, YOU ARE. Puerto Ricans cannot vote for President ONLY as long as they REMAIN on Puerto Rico, since Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a state, and does NOT get ANY electoral votes. But as American citizens, they are free to move to any state, like Florida, without restrictions, and can then vote for President.
From: Voting Rights and Citizenship, From The City University of New York; "Unlike other immigrant groups, Puerto Ricans, because of their U.S. citizenship, were able to vote upon arrival in the mainland."
Michale wrote:
"Why not??
The black community automatically supported someone with a black background...
Blood is thicker than water..."
BECAUSE, the Latino community is NOT a RACE. It is in fact, made up of many racial groups. There are some that are of Native American Heritage, some that are of African Heritage, and some that are of European Heritage, or a mix of any combination thereof. Mexican culture is different from Cuban culture, is different from Colombian culture, is different from Puerto Rican culture, and many of them would take offense at being monolithically lumped together.
Michale, you are confusing constitutional provisions regarding Puerto Ricans as individual AMERICAN CITIZENS, with the TERRITORY of Puerto Rico ITSELF. The two are NOT the same!
Michale wrote:
"Me too!! :D America's Oldest City"
We are practically neighbors then, as I am just right down the I-10 interstate from you in Tallahassee. :-D
The key word in your OWN citation link Michale was "PUERTO RICAN RESIDENTS" i.e. meaning residents of the island. That does NOT APPLY to Puerto Rican residents of New York or Florida, or any other part of the mainland.
NO, because I am NOT WRONG, YOU ARE. Puerto Ricans cannot vote for President ONLY as long as they REMAIN on Puerto Rico, since Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a state, and does NOT get ANY electoral votes. But as American citizens, they are free to move to any state, like Florida, without restrictions, and can then vote for President.
They have to establish residency...
BECAUSE, the Latino community is NOT a RACE. It is in fact, made up of many racial groups. There are some that are of Native American Heritage, some that are of African Heritage, and some that are of European Heritage, or a mix of any combination thereof. Mexican culture is different from Cuban culture, is different from Colombian culture, is different from Puerto Rican culture, and many of them would take offense at being monolithically lumped together.
The same could be said for the black community...
The HERITAGE of latinos or blacks may be different...
Or maybe I am just equating latino with hispanic...
The key word in your OWN citation link Michale was "PUERTO RICAN RESIDENTS" i.e. meaning residents of the island. That does NOT APPLY to Puerto Rican residents of New York or Florida, or any other part of the mainland.
As long as their residency is established, I agree...
But if they are tax-exempt and still try to vote, they are committing fraud...
We are practically neighbors then, as I am just right down the I-10 interstate from you in Tallahassee. :-D
A stone's throw! We never get out to the panhandle much. Most of our intra-state travel has been to Ozello Keys and the occasional Canaveral trip for a cruise. :D
Michale
From: Voting Rights and Citizenship, From The City University of New York; "Unlike other immigrant groups, Puerto Ricans, because of their U.S. citizenship, were able to vote upon arrival in the mainland."
ONLY if they establish residency and assume tax-payer status...
Michale
@Michale [42]
Wow, that was something to put out there. Good find, Michale. Still, if Mr. Trump was actually referenced in the movie somehow (a la a direct Easter egg), that would've been a bit more Carnac of them. Still, I guess the '80s were Trump's ragin' casino days though, weren't they?
@John M [44]
I didn't compare your numbers to my source (Votemaster), but I'd certainly agree: Dems definitely have the EV advantage. The Electoral College or the national demographics/distribution would likely have to structurally change for that advantage to disappear in the next couple of presidential elections.
2016 also is the likely last election in the 2010s that may not have a strong influence on 2020s redistricting after the 2020 census. Beginning in 2017, at least some of the state office holders elected will likely be in power when lines are redrawn (in 2016 only 1/3 of the senators of those states with 6-year state senate terms will be elected, give or take a few). Not sure how much impact 2017 will have, but 2018 for sure will, esp. since it's the midterms and so likely to give the advantage to the Republicans in state elections and so again in redistricting.
Besides the structural and demographic challenges, that redistricting is the next event that may affect the current Democratic EV advantage.
Probably a little early to start handicapping the 2024 presidential elections just yet... (I'll be how old in 2024?! *sigh*).
rdnewman [1] -
Yeah, I had to chuckle about the Reid endorsement as well. Almost as bad as an Obama endorsement!
Michale [6] -
Really? Missed that, what with the news that Kes (from Voyager) has gone batshit crazy...
Please post a link! "I'll take you home again, Kathleen" is likely the worst fake Irish accent in all of Star Trek, if not all of television....
Heh.
But RIP and all of that...
Michale [7] -
Wasn't that the article that added in elections from all over the world in order to stretch their conclusion to the breaking point? Just asking...
TheStig [8] -
Exactly.
Michale [9] -
Gerrymandering favoring the Dems? Are you high, or what? Dem House members got 1.5 million more votes in 2012, and yet GOP dominates the House. That is gerrymandering, my friend, but not by the Dems....
[10] -
Did you see the reunion of BTTF on Jimmy Kimmel? It was pretty awesome, I have to admit...
TheStig [11] -
And, don't forget "ignoring the national polls in favor of state poll analysis, given the Electoral College," right?
:-)
Michale [12] -
Google "The big blue wall." It'll blow your mind.
JohnM [16] -
That is a very good question indeed. I look forward to the pollsters asking something along those lines, personally....
nypoet22 [24] -
Yeah, well, President Schwarzenegger was also predicted by Hollywood (Michael, cite, please? Was a movie with Stallone in it, I recall).
President Lisa Simpson would be an improvement, that's for sure... although we've already had one sax-playing presidents, haven't we?
rdnewman [26] -
You a tea drinker too? I can't stand coffee, but love caffeine, personally, so I drink a lot of black tea -- stronger the better...
Heh.
Michale [29] -
I don't buy "taking OH and FL" equates to "GOP win," but I have to admit I do worry about Kasich as someone's VP choice, because it would put Ohio up for grabs. But Dems have a whole lot of routes to 270 in the Electoral College without Ohio, but the GOP still has to essentially run the table in all the battleground states.
rdnewman [32] -
Aha! A fellow wonk!
I'm not sure I agree with your "big red wall" of 158 EVs, I put the number closer to less than 120 EVs. I don't quibble with your further addition of 33, but I'd like to see your list of states....
Here's my math, from earlier this year:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/04/08/a-hard-look-at-the-big-blue-wall/
Good point also about the Supreme Court case in Texas -- that could shake things up.
I tend to watch http://www.electoral-vote.com -- nice graphics, good data.
Anyway, stick around. Next spring, I'll start my "Electoral Math" series of columns, which dissects these issues...
LizM [35] -
I still wonder what Iraq would have been like now if Biden's plan had been implemented. It seemed, at the time, the most realistic power-sharing plan, and it still seems that way today. Biden's foreign policy experience seems to dwarf everyone else's...
John M [43] -
You raise a good point -- the Hispanic vote in FL is changing rapidly. It's no longer just "anti-Castro Cubans," it's much more varied now. Even among the Cuban-American community, the younger folks are veering away from the hardliner Republican stance. If FL goes Dem for a few more elections, it might not even qualify as a battleground state anymore.
Michale? FL resident? Your thoughts?
John M [44] -
See that link, above, to my Big Blue Wall column...
Michale [45] -
OK, pal, you've just lost it here. I mean, seriously, check your medications. Puerto Rico is PART OF THE UNITED STATES. Its citizens can move to America and vote for president WITHOUT IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS. They are AMERICANS. Period.
Deal with the facts, pal.
Michale [47] -
Here you go, from your own cite:
"Unless they have official residency in a U.S. state..."
So, if they move to FL, then they are legally allowed to vote for president. Period. End of sentence. From YOUR OWN cite...
John M [54] -
This is a total non-sequitur, but I have to ask as it is a raging battle out here in the newspapers. Do you routinely refer to highways as "the I-10" as in "I was driving down the I-10" or do you use other grammatical formats? Michael, feel free to chime in, here. Is it "the I-10" or "the 10" or just "I-10"? Is "I-10" different from "US-1" or is it dealt with the same? "The 1" or "The US-1" or just "US-1"???
Inquiring minds want to know... this is indeed a diversion, means nothing to politics, but I am interested in a semantic sort of way.
rdnewman [59] -
But the redistricting won't take place until the 2022 elections. 2020 won't be affected, because the Census will still be underway...
Whew! Finished!
:-)
-CW
Yeah, well, President Schwarzenegger was also predicted by Hollywood (Michael, cite, please? Was a movie with Stallone in it, I recall).
"I have, in fact, perused some newsreels in the Schwarzenegger Library, and the time that you took that car..."
"Hold it. The Schwarzenegger Library?"
"Yes. The Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor when you...?"
"Stop! He was President?"
"Yes! Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states..."
"I don't wanna know. President..."
-DEMOLITION MAN
:D
Interesting note.. Schwarzenegger returned the favor to Stallone by "casting" Stallone as THE TERMINATOR in a movie poster/stand in LAST ACTION HERO..
:D
Google "The big blue wall." It'll blow your mind.
Oh, I know.. Democrats gaming the system..
Still won't be enough to overcome Hillary's deficits...
You a tea drinker too? I can't stand coffee, but love caffeine, personally, so I drink a lot of black tea -- stronger the better..
I hate coffee as well.. Never EVER drink it.. Diet Coke by the 12 packs.. But never coffee :D
Michale? FL resident? Your thoughts?
My personal experience is that Florida is a red state thru and thru despite some flirtations with blueness in recent elections....
But I am in the NE part which is rabidly conservative with a noticable libertarian streak..
OK, pal, you've just lost it here. I mean, seriously, check your medications. Puerto Rico is PART OF THE UNITED STATES. Its citizens can move to America and vote for president WITHOUT IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS. They are AMERICANS. Period.
Deal with the facts, pal.
Puerto Rico is as much "part of the United States" as Guam is..
And neither Puerto Rico NOR Guam can vote in Presidential Elections..
These are the facts..
So, if they move to FL, then they are legally allowed to vote for president. Period. End of sentence. From YOUR OWN cite...
If they MOVE to Florida and establish residency THEN they can vote..
But they ALSO have to pay income taxes as well..
As I said if they vote but don't pay their income taxes, they are voting illegally..
This is a total non-sequitur, but I have to ask as it is a raging battle out here in the newspapers. Do you routinely refer to highways as "the I-10" as in "I was driving down the I-10" or do you use other grammatical formats? Michael, feel free to chime in, here. Is it "the I-10" or "the 10" or just "I-10"? Is "I-10" different from "US-1" or is it dealt with the same? "The 1" or "The US-1" or just "US-1"??
I-10.. Not THE I-10.. US-1, A1A, I-95, SR207.. etc etc
Around here, we never put "The" in front of a highway..
Now that I think about it, I do remember how everything on the west coast has a "the" before it.
THE 405, THE 805....
But if I recall correctly (I haven't lived in California since '86) the single digit highways (I-8, I-5) do not usually have a THE in front of it..
Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmm :D
Michale
CW-60
Right, too bad they only get cracking late in the game!
I'm also a fan of crusty old political reporters who know every how every county and precinct has voted for the past 30 years.