Two robo-caller polls, one by Opinion Savvy and the other by Emerson College, indicate that Iowa is nearly a three-way tie, with Donald Trump one point ahead of Ted Cruz, and either one or five points ahead of Marco Rubio.
In related news, winter storm Kayla is now set to hit Iowa this evening, not tomorrow morning. As to whether this is an answer to the prayers of Cruz' network of evangelicals isn't known; but, we suppose a lawsuit from Trump will be filed on the basis that God made an in-kind contribution that exceeds the FEC limits.
CLIFFORD F. THIES In parliament, Prime Minister Winston Churchill was once described by an MP across the aisle (a member of an opposition party) as an enemy. Churchill retorted, "You sir, are my opponent, my enemies are sitting behind," referring to members of his own party. So it is this year in the Republican field.
Thus far, the bulk of the attack ads have been of Jeb Bush versus Marco Rubio and visa versa. Mark Murray of NBC’s First Read, relying on ad tracking data from SMG, says the Bush campaign and associated Super-PACs have spent $66 million on ads through January 20th, and the Rubio campaign and associated Super-PACs, $33 million. In comparison, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have each spent only $4 million. (Trump relies on free media which we think of as "earned media," dominating the air waves with his sheer outlandishness. And Cruz relies on his in-state network of evangelicals and out-of-state army of volunteers.) The reason for the enormous spending of Bush and Rubio is that they are or covet being the candidate of the donor class. Each is trying to establish himself as the moderate in the field. By eliminating the other, each hopes to consolidate the e-Republicans (Establishment Republicans), the K Street Republicans, the country club Republicans, and the northeast moderates. This evening, it will be High Noon in Iowa, and - if the polls are a guide - Jeb has had the stuffing kicked out of him. It is possible Jeb won't even qualify for 1 delegate in this proportional representation state, where 3 percent of the statewide vote will effectively be the threshold. Jeb will be flying to New Hampshire during the day, not staying for the announcement of the results. He says it's because of "logistics," not to avoid being at a "victory party" that is really a defeat party.
The problem for Marco is that Jeb apparently thinks he'll catch a break in New Hampshire, as do Chris Christie and John Kasich, both of whom departed Iowa immediately after the Fox Trumpless debate of last week. Kasich has been on the upswing in the New Hampshire polls, and is currently in second place (far behind Trump). He also has a few endorsements by Democratic newspapers as the least objectionable Republican in the field. But, this lead in the polls is subject to change upon the announcement of the results from Iowa. As for Bush and Christie, currently in the high single digits, those numbers are also likely to erode. It is possible that only three candidates will meet the 10 percent threshold for delegates in New Hampshire: Trump, likely to win the state against a fractured field, Cruz and Rubio. With the field winnowed to three candidates, Trump, Cruz and Rubio, South Carolina and the subsequent primaries and caucuses could prove interesting.
CLIFFORD F. THIES In case you thought Bernie Sanders has converted from his commie-loving, anti-American, radical left youth (as who else do you know honeymooned in the Soviet Union?), Jill Sobule provides a clue. According to Jill, "they," meaning Americans, are racists.
When they say, “we want our America back”
Jill Sobule
When they say, "we want our America back,
Our America back, our America back.”
When they say, "we want our America back"
Well, what the f*ck do they mean?
Remember the garden of Eden?
Before Eve hung out with that snake?
You could walk down the streets not worry 'bout thieves
All the kids could go trick or treating.
Then those foreigners started coming in
Like the Germans in 1790
Then the Irish arrived, the potato blight
The neighborhood started changing
Life was better, we lived right,
Life had a paler shade of white, when they sing
"We want our America Back"
Before there was Ellis island
And that statue we got from the French
That whore’s still alerting, with strangers she’s flirting
Inviting them into our beds
The guineas, the coolies, the wetbacks, the reds
The Jews, now those terrorists
And who let in the woman who looks after my kid
And the one who is cleaning my mess?
Before the gays had their agenda, before the slaves were free
Before that man from Kenya took the presidency
Life was so righteous, life was so clean.
Send em all back including me
When they say, "we want our America back,
Our America back, our America back."
When they say, "we want our America back"
Well, what the…f*ck do they mean?
According to Sobule, there was discrimination against the German immigrants "of 1790." At the Founding, about one out of four Americans were of German stock. Germans, their language and culture were such a part of America, that some including Benjamin Franklin thought we should recognize German as a second common language. Fortunately that did not happen. Instead, over time, German-Americans simply transitioned into unhyphenated-Americans. During the 19th Century, German immigration continued strong. The problems encountered by German immigrants were typical for immigrants, and their upward mobility was strong. At the beginning, many of them sold themselves into indentured servitude in order to pay for their passage to America. Perhaps this is the discrimination the singer is alluding to. She thinks the German immigrants should have been greeted with an EBT card, section 8 housing and heating subsidies (cooling subsidies would have to await the invention of air conditioning), so that instead of being forced to work by the necessity of putting food on the table, they could have eased into a cycle of intergenerational poverty. Regarding the Irish immigrants, yes, there was discrimination. This was because they brought crime, alcohol abuse and dependency. But, over time, they too became part of our society of free and self-repsonsible citizens, only a bit slower than the Germans. At the time of the arrival of the Irish, Boston was already a polyglot city, so the singer's allusion to a paler shade of white is just garbage. With the Irish, Boston merely became more of a melting pot. Eventually, Catholic churches, schools and charities took their place along side the Protestant private voluntary-sector. The New England states (and New York and Ohio) provided equal rights, including the right to vote to all their citizens by 1850. With regard to restrictions on immigration, the relevant date isn't the Founding, but the restrictions against immigration from Asia and a general restriction of immigration that were enacted during the early 20th century. This was part of the rise of progressivism, and the concomitant ideas of population control, eugenics and race. Leading progressives such as Richard T. Ely argued that the low cost of transportation allowed the inferior races to come to this country, and that the government had to put an end to it.
[W]e must notice the deterioration in the character of our immigration and ponder well the effects which a large admixture of baser foreign elements is likely to have upon American nationality. Going back to our early immigration we find men of intellect and conscientious conviction… As late as 1848 Germans of a fine class came to this country … Transportation has become so cheap that even an industrially inferior class is able to secure means to come to our shores. Richard T. Ely, "Thoughts on Immigration," 1894.
The restrictions on legal immigration of the early 20th century eventually resulted in illegal immigration, a problem with which we are now dealing. Currently, immigration policy is at an impasse because the Democrats want to being in more moochers to add to the voting roles. According to the singer, "they" meaning you, oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants because it is racist to not want moochers to bankrupt the country. But, she only reveals her own hatred of Americans and ignorance of our history. During the 19th Century, before the welfare state, immigrants were forced by necessity to work and, so, over time, joined the rest of us who work and pay taxes.
On Saturday, Gallup released polling results concerning Donald Trump's huge negatives in the general population. With a 33 percent favorable rating and a 60 percent unfavorable rating, Gallup described Trump as the most unliked leading presidential candidate since 1992. Eclipsed by this spectacularly bad result were the terrible ratings of Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. While Trump has a net negative of -27, Clinton and Bush each comes in with a net negative of -10. I thought I'd compare Gallup's results to those of other recent nationwide polls.
It turns out that Gallup's figures for The Donald were a bit more negative than the average of recent polls (-27 versus -22), and for El Jeb a bit less negative (-10 versus -18). El Jeb's net favorability is about the same as The Donald's. The donor class (Bush's supporters) are about as tone deaf as Trump's followers as to the electability of their man in an election in which the other party nominates a candidate with a positive net favorability or at worst a small net negative. Of course, in a Trump or Bush versus Hillary Clinton match-up, who can tell?
Note: at 'TRACKING POLLS' (above), I have the latest update of the full range of Republican (as opposed to general population) sentiment concerning the leading candidates for the GOP nomination.
CLIFFORD F. THIES Frank Luntz, who previously worked for Michael Bloomberg in one of his mayoral races, and who also previously worked for Ross Perot when Perot ran for President as a third-party candidate in 1992, has looked at the feasibility of Bloomberg launching a third-party or independent bid for the White House this year. Bloomberg is a registered independent, having previously been a Democrat and a Republican. He is liberal on social issues, and might be presumed to be pro-big business on economic issues, and pro-internationalist. According to Luntz, Bloomberg would start a few points behind various combinations of the Republican and Democratic Party front-runners (Clinton and Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Rubio). Given his negatives, only 49 percent of the American public would even consider voting for Donald Trump. Likewise, only 49 percent would even consider voting for Hillary Clinton. In contrast, Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are all in the 54 to 57 percent range. But, in hypothetical match-ups, Bloomberg falls 8 to 10 points behind the front-runner regardless of whom the Republican Party nominates, when Clinton is the Democratic Party standard-bearer. A further problem is where, in the electoral college, is Bloomberg going to compete for votes? It doesn't seem likely that he could compete in the rural areas of the country and, so, he would begin by conceding all the states in which the Republicans are strong to the GOP; and, vie with Clinton for the blue states. Unless he were to run the table in the blue states, the best he could hope for would be to throw the election into the U.S. House of Representatives, where the Republicans have a decided advantage. On the other hand, Bloomberg is a very, very wealthy man. Using Forbes' estimates, he is nine times as wealthy as Trump, $38.6 billion versus $4.5 billion.
An on-line poll of 488 (thus far) put former two-term New Mexico Governor (as a Republican) and 2012 Libertarian Party nominee for President Gary Johnson far out in front to be re-nominated. In 2012, Johnson received 1.3 million votes (a record for the LP) equal to 1.0 percent (second to their result in 1980, when their candidate received 1.1 percent). His 0.5 percent of the vote in Florida denied that state to Mitt Romney.
The highly respected Des Moines Register poll has Donald Trump in first place, with 28 percent; followed by Ted Cruz with 23, and Marco Rubio with 15. Ben Carson is only the other candidate in double digits, with 10. Rand Paul is at 5 percent. All the other candidates - included Jeb! - are at risk of not qualifying for any delegates. The support scattered among many candidates who have no chance of doing well means there is a big potential for last-minute switches. Cruz and Rubio are both strong in second choices and could benefit from tactical voting. More commentary as other polls are released through Monday. Be sure to check 'TRACKING POLLS' above, where all these data are aggregated!
CLIFFORD F. THIES Our Principles PAC, described as an establishment PAC, has gone totally negative against Donald Trump in Iowa, with last minute ad buys and a six page, full-color mailer highlighting the Donald's evolution from moderate Republican to third-party to liberal Democrat to populist Republican; his connections with Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Bill and Hillary Clinton, and his flip-flopping on issues such as immigration and health care. A portion of the mailer is pictured to the right, and the entire mailer can be found here. I don't think the attack will be effective in reducing support for Trump. As he himself has said, "I could shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters." He has endeared himself with this supporters by calling people stupid and ugly, tapping into racism and xenophobia, and by his ostentatious display of wealth. He also has the gift of charisma. He is tremendously engaging, both in the interview format and in podium speeches. Opinion polls show that most of his supporters are committed to voting for him. It will be very difficult to lower his number, which in Iowa and New Hampshire looks to be around 32 percent. Against a fractured field, with Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and some lesser candidates splitting the evangelical vote in Iowa, and with Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie splitting the moderate vote in New Hampshire, Trump looks like the winner of the first two decision states.
