Maybe I’m just weird, but I’d go w/ Clinton for both. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think I’d have a far more interesting and engaging conversation with Clinton whilst drinking that beer.
RichVR
2843
I’d rather have a few beers with Bill. Man, the stories.
Clinton got a huge boost when she went in front of Congress, because she looked positively Presidential and Awesome. Clinton wins by getting the Republican Party to do more hearings.
Also, I think people are warming up to her, even if it is only grudgingly. She is smart, driven, and has an agenda that I can get behind (especially on Family Leave and Equal Wages). She’s been working on healthcare since her Husband was in power. She’s not over 70 years old, and she knows the system, and can put the screws to the Republican Party on day one. The US government works when one party or the other takes control, because everything else is gridlock. And in a winner take all system, I think Hillary has what it takes.
There’s a segment of the voters who dislike Clinton, but there’s also many among that segment who will hold their nose and vote for someone who doesn’t represent the far right views that any Republican candidate will have to embrace to get the nomination. Clinton will be popular among moderate women, Democrats, moderate independents, and even some fiscal conservatives who distrust the crazy policies of the far right.
Rubio does seem like the strongest candidate on the Republican side outside of the two weirdos of Carson and Trump. Bush looks deflated so who else is there? I don’t discount Rubio but I think it’s silly to dismiss Clinton just because there’s a segment of the voters who dislike her. There’s a segment of the voters who would vote for Mussolini instead of a Democrat.
What seems to really swing elections these days is how a candidate energizes turnout. I have no idea how a Clinton vs Rubio race would energize respective turnouts.
I think it will be either Bush or Rubio nominated on the Republican side. I still think something will happen between now and the primaries and Trump and Carson will slide, and the two establishment candidates will face off once again.
Miramon
2847
Wow just wow: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-ben-carson-iowa-belt-stupid/
Moments later, Trump told the crowd in Fort Dodge that he could not possibly understand why anyone supports Carson, who is essentially tied with Trump for support in the first-voting state.
“How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?” he asked.
Answer: Pretty damn stupid, because they believe your crap too.
ShivaX
2848
How does Trump not know that the Iowa GOP Primary voters go purely on religion?
Fucking Santorum won the primary in 2012. Before that: Huckabee. Then GWB x2. Then Dole nearly lost to Buchanan. Pat Robertson had a very strong showing back in 88’ for crying out loud.
I honestly don’t think anyone cares about the Iowa Primary when it comes to the GOP. Democrats? Sure, it’s relevant. Obama got a massive boost from it. The same sure as hell can’t be said for Santorum, who never had a shot and no one ever gave a shit about.
Canuck
2849
I’m not a politician but calling the people that you want to vote for you “stupid” doesn’t sound like the wisest of campaign choices.
True that, but the belt buckle rant is pure gold.
Com’on! Someone come stab me! You! You wanna take a crack at The Donald?
Stab him?
lol, no need for that.
Just steal his hair and he should just collapse.
Timex
2853
So, is this just how presidential elections are going to be, forever now? Or is this a one time thing where it’s totally crazy, but next election it’ll go back to some degree of normalcy where we don’t have 15 different crazy candidates?
Good lord, I hope this is just a one time thing also.
This cycle isn’t too dissimilar to 2012 - the first phase of that was a similar clown convention. Then it settled down into a genteel race before devolving into a bitter mud-slinging thing at the end.
I’ll at least give Trump points for calling Carson out on his crap. That man thinks he’s being scrutinized more than anyone else? Maybe he shouldn’t have written a book that belonged more in fantasy fiction than in the biographical section
As people have noted before, though, two things are very different this time:
-
The true outsiders were no longer in the lead by this point in 2012. Bachman was in the cellar, and Cain was out of the lead and in the process of melting down.
-
Romney was always in second place, even when the outsiders were doing well. This time establishment candidates do no better than a very distant third, and sometimes not even that (assuming we count never-been-elected Fiorina as a non-establishment candidate.)
2011-2 graph of polls.
2015 graph of polls.
I have to hand it to the GOP. I didn’t think we’d get a wackier election cycle since 2012, but they’ve done it with this one and we’re not even close to nailing down who’s going to get the nomination.
Be hilarious if after all this it was Romney again.
CraigM
2860
There’s about a 47% chance they beg him to after this.
Those are great graphs.
I’m not going to argue that the whack-jobs aren’t doing any better this cycle than last – they absolutely are, and by surprising margins. There is also the appearance that in the 2012 cycle, the whack-jobs just kept cycling the same voters - Bachmann fell as Perry rose; Perry fell as Cain rose; Cain fell as Gingrich rose; Gingrich fell as Santorum rose. This year, Trump and Carson are BOTH flying high with their own supporters… and the expectation might be that if one of them stumbles, the other one will shoot into the stratosphere.
But looking at those historical graphs, Herman Cain - the goofiest of all the GOP candidates - had just “peaked” at this point in the campaign and he was just “now” going down, to be replaced by another dead-ender: Gingrich. Hell, it shows that Santorum - a guy with approximately zero percent chance of being elected, even back then - would take the lead spot in January.
There’s also the relative size of the field that tends to skew matters. Both Trump (25%) and Carson (24%) have about the same percentages of the primary voters than Cain did at this same time (25%). That surprised me, because I picture Trump and Carson to be polling far, far higher than the nut-jobs of 2012… but no, Gingrich and Santorum both had higher numbers at one point or another. The difference is that the delta between them and an “Establishment” candidate is so wide that it makes them look like they are running away with it.
But I don’t think that’s the case. There are fourteen (!!!) candidates still in the race, and with the exception of Huckabee and Cruz’s voters (which would go to Carson and Trump, respectively), I think that if any one of the other ten dropped out (e.g., Kaisch, Paul), neither Trump nor Carson’s numbers will be bolstered. Eventually, you’ll have a single “Establishment” candidate against one of the outsiders, and the insider will eventually win.
The question is only how much damage will the outsiders do before that happens?
