Democratic Race Stabilizes
On Monday, I took a look at the Republican nomination race, so I thought it'd be fair to check in today with the Democratic contest. One obvious reason why I (and others in the political commentary world) have been paying so much more attention to Republicans is the continuing volatility of the GOP campaign, which still has (as of this writing) 14 official candidates running. By comparison, the Democratic race is a lot more calm after half the field has already dropped out, which has left only three candidates still in the contest: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley.
Even a horserace between three horses can be exciting and close, we should mention, if they're evenly matched. The sheer number of candidates isn't always the best indicator of the fierceness of the struggle to be the frontrunner. However, in this case neither of those things is really true. The Democratic primary race has stabilized and there simply hasn't been much movement at all in the past few months. The safe bet is on Hillary to win comfortably. Bernie has an outside shot but still a rather long one, and O'Malley has no chance whatsoever.
In national polling, Clinton lost ground all summer, and hit a low of around 40 percent support among Democratic primary voters. Since October, however, she's been regaining ground and has now spent the last month in the range between 54 and 58 percent. Individual polls (rather than a poll-of-polls average) for the past month have fluctuated between 50 and 60 percent support. This is not an insurmountable lead -- she could very well fall back again if she stumbles badly on the campaign trail. But, at this point, it certainly is a daunting lead for the other candidates in the field.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders seems to have hit a ceiling, in the low-to-mid 30s. He also has bettered his poll numbers since the summer, but he didn't benefit as much as Clinton from Joe Biden declining to run. Both Clinton and Sanders got a big upward bounce as the Biden fans divided themselves up, but Clinton pulled in more of them than Bernie. And Clinton, even discounting the Biden spike, has been steadily gaining ground since the summer, while Bernie's only upward movement came as a result of the Biden announcement -- his poll numbers have been otherwise pretty flat. Bernie's been regularly polling in the range between 30 and 35 percent, but showing no real movement upwards of late.
Martin O'Malley is, as he's always been, an afterthought. His polling average has yet to hit five percent, and is currently at 2.3 percent. I've long maintained that he's in the race largely to present himself as an attractive candidate for an eventual vice-presidential pick, and I've seen nothing in the past few months to change this impression.
Of course, Sanders supporters have been (correctly) pointing out that Hillary Clinton was also way out in front in the polling in the 2008 nomination race, and Barack Obama was lagging behind her roughly in the spot Bernie Sanders now occupies. Anything can, indeed, happen in politics -- and usually already has. Sanders could spark some late attention and capture some early primaries, which would give his campaign a boost and get Democratic voters to more seriously consider an alternative to Hillary Clinton.
In the first four states to vote, Sanders could indeed do well. Right now the polling in Iowa puts Clinton up by a pretty wide margin (22 points in the most recent poll), but the situation is volatile. Clinton and Sanders are both fighting hard for the state, but Sanders might have a hidden edge since in a caucus state the most-committed voters have an outsize influence. Fired-up "Feel The Bern!" voters versus tepid Hillary supporters might make this state more competitive than the polls now indicate. Even if Sanders comes in a close second here, it'll likely do his campaign some good.
New Hampshire is much more favorable to Sanders, being right next door to Vermont. Sanders is currently leading Clinton in the polling here, and they've been neck-and-neck for months. New Hampshire isn't all that big a state in terms of delegates to the convention, but its "first primary" status means it has an outsized influence on how voters elsewhere see the race shaping up. So if Sanders comes in a close second in Iowa and then beats Clinton in New Hampshire, the entire race might become a whole lot closer nationally, as Democratic voters give Bernie a second look.
The next Republican state to vote is South Carolina, but Democrats in Nevada will caucus before the Democratic South Carolina primary. Nevada is currently pretty heavily tilted towards Clinton, but the polling is pretty sparse so far. Nevada is a strong Union state for Democrats, which might give Bernie another hidden advantage. If Sanders is coming off a New Hampshire win, and if his caucus-goers convince enough other Democratic voters that Sanders has a chance, it's conceivable that he could pull off an upset and win Nevada. However, South Carolina is pretty solid Clinton territory. She's currently leading Sanders by a whopping 50 points here, a lead that looks pretty insurmountable no matter how good Bernie does in New Hampshire and Nevada.
So, in the rosiest of scenarios for Sanders, he closely loses Iowa, wins New Hampshire, pulls a surprise victory in Nevada, but then loses badly in South Carolina. That's an even split, two states each. This is exactly what Sanders would need to be considered a valid contender by voters nationally. The prospect of a real alternative to Clinton would be safer for many voters to consider, if Sanders already has some solid victories under his belt.
Bernie's real viability may hinge on one particular demographic, though. Many have already pointed this out, but the biggest reason Clinton is doing so well in South Carolina right now is the African-American vote. Sanders has been frustrated in his efforts to woo these voters, which is a little inexplicable when you consider his policies versus Clinton's. Hillary has great name recognition among African-Americans and some secondhand good feelings left over from her husband's time in office. This is going to be crucial when the first big primary date happens, as a huge chunk of the South all votes on the same day (people are already calling it "S.E.C. Tuesday," which is as good a name as any).
Clinton's lead in South Carolina is likely insurmountable for Sanders, no matter how well he does in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. But that may change by S.E.C. Tuesday, as the voters will have had more time to take Bernie's measure. To have any good chance of winning the nomination, Bernie Sanders must shake loose a significant portion of the African-American vote from Hillary Clinton across the South. If he can't do so by S.E.C. Tuesday, then Clinton may sweep the South and begin projecting an air of invincibility that simply cannot be overcome.
In conclusion, there is absolutely no path to the nomination for Martin O'Malley. There is a path to victory for Bernie Sanders, but it is a narrow one which must be perfectly trod. But the wide, wide road to the nomination really does belong to Hillary Clinton at this point. She has pulled out of her summer slump, she's campaigning a lot better, and she's a lot more accommodating to the media these days. She is hitting her stride, in other words. Being a Clinton, though, means there will always be scandalmongers out there trying to take her down, and it's always possible that one of these will stick in a way all the ginned-up "scandals" this year have not. Hillary Clinton could, in other words, somehow beat Hillary Clinton. But barring some self-immolation of one sort or another, the safe bet right now is that Hillary Clinton will be the 2016 Democratic nominee.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
We're happy to report that (you may have to refresh or reload this page to see it, up top) we have reached the halfway point in our Holiday Pledge Drive.
Woo hoo!
This jump upwards was due to one very generous donation, but this year we've also seen a record number of small donors who have given $25 or less. We are thankful for everyone who donates, no matter the amount, and we're hoping the second half of reaching our goal is as fast as the first!
Thanks to all,
-CW
Setting content aside, I find HilRod to be a less than inspiring public speaker and she does that Atlanta Braves chop-chop hand motion way too much. If the GOP nominates Terd Cruz, it could be a very tedious campaign. Just listening to that liar for Jesus is enough to make your skin crawl.
She is hitting her stride, in other words. Being a Clinton, though, means there will always be scandalmongers out there trying to take her down, and it's always possible that one of these will stick in a way all the ginned-up "scandals" this year have not.
Or, to be more factually accurate, there are certain to be some more instances of Hillary not playing by the rules or doing something illegal and will get caught at it..
Put another way...
The FBI doesn't investigate "ginned up scandals"...
Especially THIS FBI...
Am I wrong??
Michale
266
I find HilRod to be a less than inspiring public speaker and she does that Atlanta Braves chop-chop hand motion way too much.
Atlanta Braves??
Isn't that... yunno.... racist???
:D
Michale
269
It seems to me that at the moment Clinton is aiming to appeal to the center-right electorate in November and trying to avoid a swing to the left to address Bernie on his own territory. This may cause some "squeaky-bum" moments (Google it :) for her in the early states as you say Chris, but I think she dominates S.C. and the S.E.C. primary without having to dash to the left then swing back to the center-right.
The reason I think she dominates S.C. and S.E.C. is because if she starts to slip, Bill comes out full on and becomes her left wing proxy who is still revered by the black community. It will be hard for Bernie to beat Bill.
I think we should look at Bill's visibility as a signal of the Clinton campaign's comfort level. If Bill is basically invisible, then the campaign is happy, if Bill suddenly appears, his focus will indicate where the Clinton campaign perceives a weakness. The less they have to use Bill before August of next year, the better for Hillary, but I expect full on Bill from August on.
Hey CW
Just out of curiosity, in reference to this column, did you take a look at the polls that make up the RCP numbers to see if the demographic and landlines issues that have been raised may be valid?
Not trying to flog a dead horse, but I was wondering if you checked it out and decided there were no concerns, or if you didn't check it out.
Thanks
A
neilmcg-
If it's Hillary, I suspect the Greens will cross that 5% threshold.
Your analysis of her game plan seems accurate, but I'm not so sure the Left is going to be swayed by Bill.
Take the recent comments about restricting access to the internet for the "bad guys" by both Hillary and Trump... they were nearly identical... with both dismissing the First Amendment concerns.
If the choice is between two Wall Street coddling, Constitution trashing foreign interventionists, the Dems are going to lose a lot of votes that they are currently counting on to win.
There is absolutely nothing Bill can say that will convince me to vote for Hillary, and I am far from alone in that.
A
Altohone:
Regarding Bill and the left: I agree, but I should have been more specific. I was talking about the black vote in the South. I think that Bill will introduce enough FUD to obscure Bernie's message, and will personally be able to pick up a lot of respected black leaders' endorsements to mitigate Bernie's appeal.
I agree that Bernie's policies are better for most blacks, just as they are for most middle/working class Americans, however we lean to the right more than most other nations do, so if Bernie tacks left to open more of a gap, he will lose support from the center.
Al,
Don't you think that the web sites that ISIS and al
Qaeda are using can and should be shut down?
Do we really need to talk about First Amendment rights of American citizens in this discussion about how to cut off the oxygen of the violently deranged Islamist barbarians?
It seems to me that blocking and otherwise obstructing and surveilling the communications of these terrorists constitutes a big part of what needs to done to defeat them, no?
I think that Bill will introduce enough FUD to obscure Bernie's message, and will personally be able to pick up a lot of respected black leaders' endorsements to mitigate Bernie's appeal.
Frak Off & Die???
Michale
283
OH wait.. That would be FOD....
My bust... :^/
Michale
284
My bust... :^/
"Is this some kinda bust??"
"Uh.. yea, well it's very impressive, but we need to ask you a few questions..."
-The Naked Gun 2 1/2
:D
You lose something without the visual, so.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVEIotzy3_A
:D
Michale
285
neilmcg
No, I'm the one that should have been clear that I was changing the subject... you were clear that you were referring to black voters.
I also think you a right about Bernie's policies being better... they are waaaay better.
Bill may well help Hillary win the nomination, but even a record turnout by black voters wouldn't offset the losses from her game plan that takes the Left for granted in the general... and I seriously doubt she will even match Obama on that turnout.
It's funny how "right of center" and "leaning right" are stated as fact so regularly, but a whole host of leftist policies regularly receive huge majorities in polls... SS, Medicare, sensible regulation of Wall Street... even ending the war on drugs, LGBT rights and abortion rights are favored by the majority.
The right wingers in both parties certainly favor the false belief, or perhaps I should say the definition that ignores such realities in order to justify the status quo policies.
A
LizM,
"Don't you think that the web sites that ISIS and al Qaeda are using can and should be shut down?"
Don't they use Twitter? On whose authority would they be shut down? Can we shut down the Family Research Council's bloody web propaganda machine too? Oh, and Trump's campaign website.
"violently deranged Islamist barbarians"
Why isn't "jihadi" an acceptable label? I think it says it all and it's one word. The jihadis don't say "violently oppressive christianic imperialists". They say "crusaders".
JFC,
I didn't mean the sites themselves, of course but, rather IS accounts on these sites.
And, I prefer my description of the Islamist terrorists better, though even that doesn't describe the half of it.
What are your suggestions for shutting down their communications capability or do you not believe that is part of the strategy to defeat IS?
I don't have any. I don't really like that idea. Where does that end? With muslims? If we're going to go there, I want to see the anti-Planned Parenthood terrists shut down too.
Isn't it also more difficult to monitor them if their communications are shut down?
JFC,
When you have the time, I'd be interested in what you think about the prescription for defeating IS as a "coherent entity" outlined by one of my favourite political analysts, William Bradley ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/post-paris-politics-count_b_8626074.html
It will end with the Islamist terrorists, primarily the so-called Islamic State. It doesn't need to be complicated.
I've heard tech experts say that curtailing their social media activity doesn't necessarily mean that monitoring activity by US and other intel services cannot still occur.
But, I don't know enough about that ...
Altohone:
"If the choice is between two Wall Street coddling, Constitution trashing foreign interventionists, the Dems are going to lose a lot of votes that they are currently counting on to win."
It will be interesting to see if antipathy on the left to two "Wall Street coddlers" will be matched or exceeded by the visceral aversion we are currently seeing from the right wing of the Republican Party towards establishment types.
I think for everybody Hillary loses on the left, Rubio might lose two on the right ... more if Trump goes off reservation.
Interesting times.
neil,
Actually, we live in ominous times ... pretty much any way you slice it.
Hi Liz
"Don't you think that the web sites that ISIS and al Qaeda are using can and should be shut down?"
Big question that, but I'll touch on some thoughts.
The notion of "shutting down" websites assumes it is feasible, but the reality is that we do not control the entire infrastructure of the Internet and it is thus fairly difficult. Mirror sites with slightly tweaked addresses can go back up almost as quickly as sites are shut down.
Current US policy as recommended by our intelligence agencies is to not shut them down, but rather monitor them for information... which we do.
BTW, since al Qaida is now on the receiving end of support from the US and our allies in our regime change war in Syria, the neolibcon Establishment may have other issues with you putting them in the same category as ISIS.
"Do we really need to talk about First Amendment rights of American citizens in this discussion about how to cut off the oxygen of the violently deranged Islamist barbarians?"
Yes, we most certainly do need to talk about First Amendment rights when both Hillary and Trump are waiving off any concerns as if it's a non-issue.
Both Hillary and Trump specifically mentioned the First Amendment, so they were not talking about foreigners, but rather American citizens losing freedom of speech due to a specific, currently disfavored topic.
I will refer you to what Glenn Greenwald has written on the subject for a better analysis if you're interested, but what it boils down to is that once you insist on exceptions, you are not supporting freedom of speech.
Practically speaking, due to the nature of the Internet, we are likely talking about blocking access to websites, not shutting them down, and censorship is a slippery slope with repercussions of many kinds.
We already have laws about providing material support to terrorists, but they are talking about criminalizing speech and ideas.
In any case, the Constitution is the law of the land, and no president has the right to unilaterally break it.
There is a process to amend the Constitution, and they can choose to pursue that process, but until they are successful, they remain bound by it.
You may also want to reflect on the notion that war based on lies and a host of other policies also qualify as "violently deranged barbarity", but that's a different subject.
"It seems to me that blocking and otherwise obstructing and surveilling the communications of these terrorists constitutes a big part of what needs to done to defeat them, no"
As far as "blocking and obstructing" goes, see above.
I have no concerns with "surveilling", but would join the many others in pointing out that the current Collect it All policy of the NSA creates a clutter of massive amounts of information from mostly innocent people that prevents discovery of actual plots by dangerous people.
The Establishment is currently using their failure to detect and prevent the attack in San Bernadino to justify the current failed approach.
Total nonsense.
A targeted approach that doesn't violate our Constitution is what they should be doing and what they should have been doing all along.
In any case, abandoning the US policies that created both al Qaida and ISIS is the ounce of prevention route we should insist upon at a minimum... and the Establishment is firmly resistant to this for foolish reasons.
I haven't had much time to visit here recently, so I apologize if I am unable to respond in a timely fashion.
A
Al,
I was terribly unclear in my post when I referred to websites and shutting them down.
I meant specific IS accounts that they use for spreading their propaganda etc. and so no infringement upon the constitutional rights of Americans, God forbid ...
neilmcg-
Repubs don't really have anywhere to go, and not voting isn't an option very many take.
I hope you are right though.
A
Hi Liz
The same issues are true for Twitter and whatnot too.
A
"I'd be interested in what you think about the prescription for defeating IS as a "coherent entity"
How many years will that take? President Terd Cruz will be making the sand glow in the dark before that.
It sounds like more perpetual war to me. The sunnis in Iraq are going to have their Sunnistan.
I'll admit that I'm not a social media user, so I don't really have any idea how the terrists use it. If they're using Twitter or Facebook, then Twitter and Facebook should shut them down. On the other hand, I don't know how ISIS is actually defined. Whose accounts get shut down? Is it like trying to exterminate trolls?
Bombing ISIS doesn't make sense to me. ISIS was in San Bernardino and Brussels. I don't think bombs will be effective unless we're ready to make a drone strike on Peoria if we get some intel about a pipe bomb factory there. We can't worry about collateral damage. They shouldn't have terrists in their neighborhood.
Altohone [24]:
There is a belief on the right that the only reason they lost in 2008 and 2012 was that they ran an establishment candidate and the base didn't vote. The figures don't support this, however it is a fairly common talking point (I'll try to find a reference or two).
I think Hillary will have enough "First Woman President" buzz to get her thru 2016 at least. Also, she will have to contract herself to the opponent. If it is Cruz it should be fairly easy - he has too much on the record to get away with an etch-a-sketch pivot to the center. Rubio will be more of a challenge for her (fairly sensible, young, Latino, more acceptable to the Republican establishment).
As we can see from the current Republican numbers, about 30% are supporting some very extreme policies, and that number could go up if Trump gets a boost from his "exclude all Muslims" policy. It will be very hard for Rubio to cash in on his Latino credentials if the grass roots want a big wall and a religious purity test at the borders.
Elizabeth [21]:
My wife thinks I'm a Pollyanna, however I think this is the best time to be alive in human history for the vast majority of humanity alive today.
I'd point to two sources:
http://goplifer.com/2015/11/21/a-golden-age/
"The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker
Neil,
You may not know this but, I am the cockeyed optimist around here. :)
John,
How many years will that take?
Well, best case scenario, in which case the right political and military strategy will be implemented and fully coordinated with ALL of the players properly engaged, then I'd say it will take a very, very, very long time.
If it's not done well and we continue on the path we are currently on, then I'd say it will take until just the other side of never.
If only a more effective strategy had been followed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks sans the 2003 invasion of Iraq we may not be dealing with the incredibly complicated mess we have on our hands today.
The frustrating thing for me is not that solving this seemingly overwhelming problem will take too long to adequately address. What frustrates me is that 14 years after the 9/11 attacks it feels like we've made so little progress and, indeed, have lost so much ground.
What still gives me hope - despite the current American presidential campaign - is the belief that the death cult of the violently deranged Islamist barbarians doesn't stand a chance of survival against the life force of the rest of the Muslim and non-Muslim world, united on a new course toward the effective implementation of a multi-faceted strategy to eradicate these violent extremists and their deranged ideology, once and for all.
Of course, this will require strong, smart and persistent US leadership of the kind we have not yet seen. And, there's the rub ...
neilmcgovern [5] -
That's an excellent point about the deployment of Bill. Maybe we should have some sort of Bubba Index to measure how often Hillary's sending The Big Dog out on the campaign trail...
Seriously, though, you make a great point.
altohone [6] -
The landline problem is one all pollsters are grappling with, and are aware of. They moan because they're not allowed to auto-dial cell phones, but they'll learn to cope. The main thing is whether their weighting works or not to predict the outcomes.
Here's an interesting look at it, from a recent New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/politics-and-the-new-machine
Short answer: nobody knows how accurate the polls are anymore, and we won't know until Election Day.
Michale [10] -
"fear, uncertainty, doubt" (I admit, I had to look it up too...)
JohnFromCensornati [14] -
I was thinking the same thing, when noticing that Obama seems to have started using Jihadi too -- it's a lot more accurate and direct.
altohone [22] and LizM, too -
All good points. Al Qaeda is reportedly working on an app that encrypts messages for its users. It wouldn't matter whether the US passed a law forcing Apple to give the "keys" to their encryption because the AQ app wouldn't (obviously) be a US one subject to US laws. We don't own the internet. Not anymore.
One further thought, a saying from the early era of the internet: "The internet sees censorship as an error, and routes around it." Blocking web sites isn't all that easy to do, at least for an open society like the US (North Korea, you can get away with it because the government controls all access points, but not here).
Also, look into the Jefferson codex and the codes used for telegraph messaging in the 19th century. Americans have been coding messages they didn't want others to read for a long, long time.
-CW
If only a more effective strategy had been followed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks sans the 2003 invasion of Iraq we may not be dealing with the incredibly complicated mess we have on our hands today.
It's ironic how ya'all care more about the suffering Iraqis in the here and now than ya'all care about the suffering Iraqis in 2003...
I wonder why that is? :D
Actually, I don't wonder..
I know exactly why that is...
Michale
307
What still gives me hope - despite the current American presidential campaign - is the belief that the death cult of the violently deranged Islamist barbarians doesn't stand a chance of survival against the life force of the rest of the Muslim and non-Muslim world, united on a new course toward the effective implementation of a multi-faceted strategy to eradicate these violent extremists and their deranged ideology, once and for all.
The problem here is that those muslims who don't partake in terrorism, the alleged "moderate" muslims, STILL blame the US and it's policies for the terrorism..
Oh sure, these "moderate" muslims make a big show of condemning the attacks..
But such condemnation is inevitably followed up with, ".... but if America didn't yada yada yada yada, then there wouldn't be any terrorism. It's America's own fault.."
If these so-called "moderate" muslims would actually OPPOSE terrorism instead of aiding and abetting and excusing and mitigating it, THAT would be a positive step towards combating terrorism..
A mere fraction of a fraction of the almost 2 billion muslims on the planet engage in terrorism..
If the other 99.9999% of the muslims ACTUALLY took a REAL stand against the tiny fraction of terrorists, then muslim terrorism wouldn't stand a chance to survive..
Michale
308
That's an excellent point about the deployment of Bill. Maybe we should have some sort of Bubba Index to measure how often Hillary's sending The Big Dog out on the campaign trail...
If Bill I-Never-Met-An-Intern-I-Didn't-Want-To-Do Clinton is kept in the shadows, then it's a good sign that Camp Hillary is happy with the way things are going..
When we see Bubba deployed, THAT will be the sign that Camp Hillary is very VERY worried..
Michale
310
neilmcg
Right now, the polls are saying that Cruz is the only Repub that Hillary can likely beat easily.
I think you are seriously underestimating how motivated Repubs are to vote against her no matter who they are voting for, and overestimating the "first woman" impact when that's just not enough of a motivation for lots of independents and many Dems.
My mom and sisters are lifelong Dems, and they can't stand her... and it's not about her right wing policies like with me. Anecdotal obviously, but I believe it's widely true.
A
Chris,
All good points. Al Qaeda is reportedly working on an app that encrypts messages for its users. It wouldn't matter whether the US passed a law forcing Apple to give the "keys" to their encryption because the AQ app wouldn't (obviously) be a US one subject to US laws. We don't own the internet. Not anymore.
Did you think I was talking about the US doing this sort of thing unilaterally?
I know it's hard for many Americans to think about what other countries are doing or about what other countries even think with respect to best practices in fighting and ultimately defeating IS and their ilk.
But, it's about time that they do.
Hey CW
Thanks for the reply and the link.
It wasn't the answer I was hoping for though, as it is the differences in weighting and methodologies in polling where my eyes glaze over, and was thus hoping for your analysis.
Here's a direct question the link you provided didn't go into-
Is weighting a method used to determine who (demographically) to call, is it applied to the results after the calls, or both?
For example, one of the recent polls of Dems in Iowa that had Hillary leading said 39% of the responses were from people over 65 years old.
So, does that mean they expect 39% of voters in Iowa to be over 65 so that's who they called in order for the poll to be representative, or is that just a disclosure pre-weighting and those 39% don't necessarily amount to 39% of the results?
As a reference, I tried to read up on the polling from 2007 in Iowa that had Hillary leading though she eventually came in third place, but it seems like pollsters aren't all that eager to be clear about where they went wrong... other than to say the demographics of actual voters (caucus actually) was different than what they had used in their polling. This wasn't very helpful in trying to figure out if they may be making the same mistakes again.
Anyway, the gist of that New Yorker article would seem to suggest that your poll related columns should include a disclaimer about accuracy AND a warning that the methodology may be harmful to democracy.
What do you think about that?
A