Month: January 2016

Since my galvanization in October of 2013, I’ve been observing the American political environment more closely than ever before in my life.  Liberalism was broken, that much was clear. But how that played out in the real world of politics was an open question.

For over two years now I’ve watched a cascade of good news.  It began with the candidate recruitment for the 2014 Senate races, when outstanding people like Gardner in Colorado and Ernst in Iowa stepped up.  This was the first indication that, indeed, a great tide had turned.  The 2014 and 2015 elections were the first tangible signs of its strength.

The Republican Presidential field is a sign of confidence and strength.  At least ten accomplished politicians entered the fray.  These people saw an opportunity.  This nomination would be worth fighting for.

So many things have gone right that you could write a book. The latest is the political castration of Billy Jeff Clinton, accomplished by the sublime Donald.  Who would have thought it would be that easy?

Today’s tidbit of affirmation comes from the polls showing Hillary losing the youth vote to Sanders.  Losing it massively.  It’s really not that hard to figure out why.  What appeal does she have to these kids?  I’m waiting.  I don’t hear anything.  Because silence.

She’s banking on the Obama coalition, of which the youth vote was a major component.  But these kids don’t like or trust her any more than anybody else does, so why in the hell would they vote for her?

Rucker and Costa in the WaPo have a piece saying the white working class is the key to winning for Republicans.  Finally, at long last, it’s starting to sink in.  The votes are there.  They’re not going to Hillary.  But they won’t vote for another Romney.   There’s a way to appeal to these voters.  It’s not hard at all.  Come September some Republican Super-Pacs will be given an assignment  — get the white working vote of the Midwest.  Any competent political consultant can see how that’s done.  No problemo.

Nate Silver’s on the ground in Iowa, making out like a real shoe leather reporter.  I wonder if he got a fedora.  Nate can’t decide if Cruz’s glass is half empty or half full.  Here’s what I’d do if I was Nate.  I’d think about what’s going to happen in the next two and a half weeks.  I’d see if I could figure out if there was any trend or movement underway.  What, just for instance, will the impact of Thursday’s debate be?  Based on the past debates, it will be a wash for the Donald, and a boost for Rubio and Cruz.  Add an ounce to Cruz’s glass, and it’s more than half full.

I have digressed.  I was talking about all the good things happening for the cause.  I’m just starting to believe that FBI Chief Comer recommends an indictment.  At that point, it seems to me, it’s ball game.  Even if Hillary is not indicted, the subsequent leaks from the FBI and the intelligence community would destroy her.  It’s Biden time.

If that were to occur I will get down on my knees and say a Rosary of thanks to the Lord.  It’s been about 60 years, and it would do me good.

Ann Selzer’s Iowa poll is out, and there are a few points worth making.  Cruz has slipped a bit, but a 25-22 lead over Trump means he’s still in good shape.  The attacks have had their effect, costing him six points.

But those votes didn’t go to the Donald.  He’s only up one.  That’s Trump’s pattern in Iowa: stability.  Over the course of six months he’s gone from 23 to 19 to 21 and now to 22.  It looks like he’s got a loyal following, but a ceiling as well.  And if his appeal does fade, Cruz is positioned to benefit:  47% of Trump voters say Cruz is their second choice.

Rubio is in the second tier with the rapidly fading Carson, quite a ways back from the top two.  He looks like he could coast to a third place finish.  That’s certainly respectable, and would mean he’s the winner of the establishment lane going into New Hampshire.  I don’t think it makes sense for Marco to try to do any better than third.  He’s better off concentrating on New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

The same goes for Kasich, Christie and Bush.  Forget about Iowa.  Fight for New Hampshire.  Paul, Huckabee and Santorum are fighting for breath.  It’s over for them, and everybody knows it.  Their voters are more in tune with Cruz than anyone else.  And Cruz is the second choice of 23% of those who don’t support him, higher than anyone else.

Helpfully, Selzer included a question on Cruz’s  stand on ethanol, or the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).  42% find it mostly or very unattractive, but 37% say it’s mostly or very attractive.  So at least 37% of Iowa Republicans are aware that RFS is a boondoggle, and are  more likely to vote for him on this issue than against him.  That’s a lot of votes in a crowded field.  The downside is that 18% say his opposition to RFS is very unattractive.  But those people are not coalescing behind one other candidate.  Everybody but Paul and Cruz  are for RFS, so they have a lot of places to go.

Being an old pro, Selzer has devised what she calls a “Selzer Score”, which reflects a candidate’s overall strength.  In her long experience, it’s the  most accurate gauge of a candidate’s standing in Iowa.  Cruz leads with a score of 89.5, with Trump second at 67.  Have you ever noticed that you’re better off going with local knowledge, as opposed to general rules of thumb?  I have, and Selzer has more Iowa smarts than anyone at 538 or anywhere else.  Cruz is sitting pretty in Iowa right now.

So what’s a Cruz Super-Pac to do?  The poll asks what is the most important trait a voter looks for in a candidate.  By far number one, at 72%, are the candidate’s values.

What does his flippant support of partial birth abortion tell us about Donald Trump’s inner core, his basic values?

Does he really have any, besides winning?

 

 

David Brooks in the NYT  is the kind of guy who mixes well in sophisticated circles.  His gig at the Times depends on being the sort of lap dog Republican the left can live with, one who wiggles in pleasure at being tolerated by the titans of liberalism.

He earns his doggy treat today by criticizing Ted Cruz for not campaigning more like Bush 3.  You know, that campaign of joy that has captivated the nation. The one that welcomed acts of love such as illegal immigration.  The Bush campaign is a joke, but to Brooks it’s an embarrassment.  This was his guy.  So you don’t call your own judgment into question, and acknowledge you backed a complete loser.  No, you call the guy who’s taking him to the cleaners a “brutal” campaigner.

Since the Republican base, and most of the country, is in a foul and pessimistic mood, why doesn’t Cruz react with a strategy of sunshine and flowers?  Because timing.  You do that after you’ve won the nomination.  You  move to the center and promise that happy days are here again.  You’d think a guy like Brooks, who seems at least to be well read, would know that.  He probably does, but just wanted to kvetch.

I read somewhere that some of the Huckabee and Santorum staffers in Iowa have given up on their guy and are trying to steer people to Rubio rather than Cruz.  More sour grapes.  Nobody likes losing, but this is really dumb.  It won’t work, for one thing.

According to Rebecca Berg of RCP the Cruz Super-Pacs are testing lines of attack against Trump in Iowa.  They obviously will pick the ones which seem most promising, and put together some attack ads on those subjects.  They’re asking about abortion, but they’re missing the real Trump vulnerability.  They should be asking about partial birth abortion, which is what Trump is on record as having supported.  Pro-lifers, who are the vast majority of Republican Iowa caucus goers, know full well the difference.

A pro-lifer can understand someone who’s pro-choice.  They disagree, but they understand.  Partial birth abortions are a whole different ball game.  You want to talk brutal, David Brooks?   They’re absolutely disgusting.  Anyone who could ever support such a procedure is a pro-choice fanatic, with no regard for the beating heart of an innocent life.  People who do this are monsters.  It’s infanticide, for God’s sake.

The evangelicals of Iowa know all of this quite well.  And watching a tape of Trump cavalierly endorsing it would hurt him.  That’s what my fingerspitzengefuhl tells me, anyway.  Test it, focus group it if you don’t buy in.

Nate Sliver and the gang at 538 are out with their primary predictions.  They give Cruz a 50-50 shot in Iowa, which is fair.   They give Trump a big edge in New Hampshire, which I think is a mistake.  Their whole analysis is based on polls (and endorsements, which may be a counter indicator this year) and nothing else.

I think Cruz wins big in Iowa and has a 50-50 shot in New Hampshire.  The schwerpunkt, don’t you know.

Pat Buchanan has a piece out today recalling where Reagan stood 36 years ago today.  Down big, I remember it well.  Everybody on the campaign knew we could win, but we also knew it would be a close run thing.  We wore scars from 1964 and were well aware that the whole thing could go south.  But we had a superb candidate and a powerful message, and with a last minute surge the Gipper won it all.

I don’t feel at all like I did in 1980.  I think this thing is practically in the bag.

Oh happy days.

 

Wednesday morning we get to see J. Ann Selzer’s Iowa poll.  This woman knows Iowa.  In Alaska we had a guy named David Dittman.  He knew Alaska.  You could take his numbers to the bank, which I actually did on more than one occasion.  Selzer’s like that in Iowa.

Until then, polls like the new one from Quinnipiac will have to do.  Trump edges Cruz, but it’s basically a dead heat.  Cruz may be slipping just a little.  Maybe Big Corn is having an effect.

There may be half a dozen Super-Pacs supporting Cruz.  As far as I can tell, none of them have done anything, even though some have a lot of money.  It’s time for them to suit up and get in the game.

Cruz and Trump have been civil with one another, but this birther B.S. means the end of that.  As I said when Trump first brought it up:  for Cruz, this is a good thing.  This is the best Trump’s got.  Deal with it, put it behind you, and it’s old news.  At least the Donald retains his sense of humor.  He’s playing “Born in the USA” at his rallies.  What a guy.

Cruz, himself, must remain positive and above the fray.  But he does not control these Pacs, and they don’t have to play nice.  The polls show that Trump draws strongly from every section of the party.  In Iowa he gets 27% of the Evangelicals.

All these people are pro-life, in most cases very strongly pro-life.  As such, they are familiar with partial birth abortion, and are shocked and horrified by it.  Anyone who could support making such a thing legal is disqualified.  In the late 90’s on Meet the Press Trump was asked by Tim Russert about partial birth abortion, and he said he was fine with it.  That tape is available, and should be shown to the evangelicals of Iowa.

Trump has since reversed himself, of course, but it’s still a legitimate attack.  He could reverse himself again.  Who knows what he really thinks?  As far as a lot of these people are concerned, having ever supported partial birth abortion is a game changer.

The tremendous press coverage given to the Iowa caucuses is a very good thing for Ted Cruz.  Every reporter is looking for an angle, and Big Corn vs. Ted Cruz is a good one.  Quinnipiac says Cruz has the lowest percentage of any R of people who would not consider voting for him, only 7%.  So far, it would seem, Big Corn hasn’t inflicted any serious damage.

When Cruz moves on to New Hampshire he’ll need to expound on the significance of beating Big Corn.  It’s just one of many special interests in this country, and really not that big of a one, at that.  There are other, more formidable interest groups which have captured Congress, and need to be confronted.  We’re talking chasing money changers from the Temple  — there are a lot of them.  And if you don’t have the courage to take them on Iowa, where will you?

In the National Journal a New Hampshire politico observes, “On the presidential level, the three issues that always come up at town meetings are Keystone XL, the crude oil export ban, and the Renewable Fuel Standard”  — meaning methanol.

A whole lot of people in New Hampshire know a lot about ethanol, and they don’t like it.  At least, that’s what my inner fingerspitzengefuhler thinks.

Try Article V first.  That’s my article in today’s AT.