Latest GOP Polls - What the Republicans Are Facing

I even think Rubio is now an asterisk. Trump has savaged him in ways that clearly put him outside the realm of VP consideration, and the idea of Cruz picking Rubio on the ticket, two first-generation Cuban Hispanics on the ticket, is plain demographic suicide. The Donald will win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and romp through the winner-take-all primaries in March, by which time he'll have the nomination sewed up, pretty much.

And, on the Dem side, Sanders is likely also to win both in Iowa and New Hampshire, and that will kick the Dem race into limbo as well. Six months ago the idea of a Trump v. Sanders Presidential election was laughable and absurd. It is now not only possible, but edging into the realm of probable. The overall national polls show both Clinton and Sanders leading Trump, but Clinton by a margin of about 2 percentage points, and Sanders by about 5, so that may also be coming into play in the thinking of Democrats.

By the way, whatever happened to presumed 2004 GOP nominee (at this point in the election cycle) Rudy Giuliani?

caw

blacbird said:

By the way, whatever happened to presumed 2004 GOP nominee (at this point in the election cycle) Rudy Giuliani?

caw

Click to expand...

He lost, as we know. Which might undermine one's confidence that Iowa is so predictable. But you seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion with regard to Trump, for some reason.

BTW, what happened to Howard Dean? Wasn't he supposed to win Iowa too?

I would expect Clinton to lose Iowa (again) and then New Hampshire, but rebound in South Carolina where the Black vote will come into play. If Sanders can win S.C., then that would be a game-changer.

Having come around to the near-certainty, Trump is not going to go away on his own, I would expect the GOP establishment to push all their chips into the center of the table behind an establishment alternative since they are certain Ted Cruz might lead the party off a steeper cliff than even The Donald would.

After Iowa, I would expect Santorum, Huckabee and Paul to drop out. Maybe Fiorina too. Carson will stagger on for reasons nobody knows, not even Carson. Bush and Rubio will have the money to go longer, but Christie is going to have to surge somewhere. Same for Kasich. A second-place finish in N.H. might do the trick, but who knows? They may figure it out and throw their "support" behind Rubio or Bush.

Trump will just keep on keepin' on. It's worked this far.

nighttimer said:

Having come around to the near-certainty, Trump is not going to go away on his own, I would expect the GOP establishment to push all their chips into the center of the table behind an establishment alternative since they are certain Ted Cruz might lead the party off a steeper cliff than even The Donald would.

Click to expand...

It's certainly true that a lot of establishment types don't like Cruz. But Iowa has been kind to far-right fringe candidates in recent caucuses (Huckabee, Santorum, etc). I'd say Cruz has a decent shot, given the history.

Michael Wolfe said:

He lost, as we know. Which might undermine one's confidence that Iowa is so predictable. But you seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion with regard to Trump, for some reason.

Click to expand...

Actually, Giuliani was long gone as a viable candidate by the time Iowa came around, so I was just making a quip about a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign. Trump, on the other hand, would make a scary lousy President, but he's run a Machiavellian brilliant campaign, at least compared to those of his competition. "For some reason"? That's the reason.

Michael Wolfe said:

BTW, what happened to Howard Dean? Wasn't he supposed to win Iowa too?

Click to expand...

By a short time before the Iowa caucuses, Dean's numbers had faltered, which opened the door for Kerry. The major issue with a caucus state is that a very well-organized campaign can possibly turn out an unusual number of caucus participants, who may not represent the majority in the polls. Cruz does indeed have a chance to come out ahead, but his numbers have slipped a bit relative to those of Trump, and, if anything, Trump supporters are currently so enthusiastic I suspect they'll turn out in Iowa. Maybe we should all pray for a big snowstorm to hit the state on caucus day.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html

caw

blacbird said:

And, on the Dem side, Sanders is likely also to win both in Iowa and New Hampshire, and that will kick the Dem race into limbo as well. Six months ago the idea of a Trump v. Sanders Presidential election was laughable and absurd. It is now not only possible, but edging into the realm of probable. The overall national polls show both Clinton and Sanders leading Trump, but Clinton by a margin of about 2 percentage points, and Sanders by about 5, so that may also be coming into play in the thinking of Democrats.

Click to expand...

I am surprised, and have been continually surprised throughout this year, about how poor the Third Wayers are on the leadership front. It's like the Third Way guts its leadership to the point where there's nothing left but calculation and cynicism. Hillary was a flawed candidate, and I make no bones that I dislike her and hope for an upset in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I think it would be good for the growing leftist storm on both sides of the Atlantic if the Reagan-Thatcher consensus, of which the Third Way is a part, got a thorough kicking into obscurity. I'm just not sure a 74 year old white man from Vermont is the best tool for that kicking. I can't help thinking of the Sanders campaign as a scene in an Isaac Bashevis-Singer novel. Soon, Sanders will show up in reporting grumpily eating Bagels in New York, and swearing in Jiddisch. Presidential politics as a Woody Allen film... But Hillary may be such a flawed candidate that the improbable Sanders carries the Democratic primaries. And all hell will break loose if she is indicted on that email-thing.

I'm not worried about Trump. If he wins the Republican nomination, the Republicans will go to a catastrophic loss. It might even break the party. And it will be even worse if Cruz wins the nominations, because he's actually viscerally loathed by everyone.

blacbird said:

Trump, on the other hand, would make a scary lousy President, but he's run a Machiavellian brilliant campaign, at least compared to those of his competition. "For some reason"? That's the reason.

Click to expand...

Fair. But I think you yourself pointed to part of the reason why Trump shouldn't be considered a lock…

The major issue with a caucus state is that a very well-organized campaign can possibly turn out an unusual number of caucus participants, who may not represent the majority in the polls.

Click to expand...

And while this is true in general, it's been even more true of GOP candidates.

If it does end up Trump vs Bernie, then Bloomberg probably jumps in - and then the GOP conservatives find a 4th candidate to run. This is a long shot, but could happen.

but we are still a long way from Trump vs Sanders. Do either have the ground game to get out the actual vote in all the states? I'm not sure they do.

Michael Wolfe said:

Fair. But I think you yourself pointed to part of the reason why Trump shouldn't be considered a lock…



And while this is true in general, it's been even more true of GOP candidates.

Click to expand...

Somehow, I feel the necessity to point out that I ain't arguing with you, Mike. I'm just evaluating the current political landscape, as clearly as I see it.

caw

blacbird said:

Somehow, I feel the necessity to point out that I ain't arguing with you, Mike. I'm just evaluating the current political landscape, as clearly as I see it.

caw

Click to expand...

No worries. I was actually agreeing with your point about discrepancies between poll numbers and actual results (the last bit I quoted). But maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I might not have been clear enough, either. I actually think the poll numbers are fairly accurate. What that means for caucus turnout is less certain. It's also worth remembering that "winning" in Iowa simply means finishing ahead of everybody else. But it's not a winner-take-all-delegates state, I don't think.* So "winning" there is less significant than winning will be in that bunch of March primaries that do work on a winner-take-all basis.

caw

* Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about this.

No doubt. Since so many of the previous winners have failed to win the nomination, it's hardly a make or break situation. But strangely enough, a lot of candidates still treat it as such.