2016 Presidential Race

[OldPhiKap]

Well, let's see if it's possible to discuss the presidential race without any snark or derision. *checks news sites*

Welp.

Four years ago, there was the establishment pick (Romney) and half a dozen rotating "not Romney" base picks. Not sure if Santorum was that strong, or just the last one standing.

Now, we have the establishment pick (Jeb) and a score of challengers that all want the same base vote. Should be fascinating to watch. I just don't see much chance of Jeb sewing it up early, which means that whoever can raise money or get free publicity or even just hang around to the end in hopes of a brokered convention could take it.

[Wander]

Four years ago, there was the establishment pick (Romney) and half a dozen rotating "not Romney" base picks. Not sure if Santorum was that strong, or just the last one standing.

I think it's the latter. While it's tempting to just see a pattern in the second place guy getting the nomination the next cycle, the poll numbers in the article Duvall linked to (and the contrast with McCain's and Romney's opening poll numbers) show that Santorum is still just another candidate in the "not Bush" picks (although I think this is more open than 2012 was for Romney).

[77devil]

I think it's the latter. While it's tempting to just see a pattern in the second place guy getting the nomination the next cycle, the poll numbers in the article Duvall linked to (and the contrast with McCain's and Romney's opening poll numbers) show that Santorum is still just another candidate in the "not Bush" picks (although I think this is more open than 2012 was for Romney).

Santorum has no shot. His social positions are just too extreme for the broad Republican Party. What's interesting about Santorum is whether his populist, blue collar message will move the field in his direction? There was a poll about international trade agreements on Bloomberg yesterday that showed republicans at 53% were the least supportive behind democrats, 58%, and independents, 63%. If this poll is indicative, successful republican candidates will have to address income inequality in a way that appeals to working class conservatives and traditional big business constituents. Not an easy task. If you oppose trade, for example, to attract blue collar conservatives you lose the Koch brothers.

[Mal]

His social positions are just too extreme for the broad Republican Party.

Moreover, as that new Gallup polling on social policy from a few days ago seems to evidence, his social positions are way too extreme for the broader public these days. Whereas four or, especially eight years ago, being an outspoken opponent of abortion, same sex marriage, or whatever else was not a particular hindrance for a Republican, and probably helped in their primary field, it's trending toward being a straight up negative, even in some Republican primary contests. This is why Hucakabee also has zero chance. It's not just that he and Santorum have been completely outside the public arena since the last cycle; it's that the nation has apparently accelerated making a significant move away from their social stances over that time. They're considerably less electable in a national contest now than they were just four years ago. That stuff may still play in Oklahoma, of course, but it looks as though the era of a social issues Republican having legitimate national aspirations may be over. At least for the time being.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/am...al-issues.aspx

I would not be surprised to see guys like Walker and Rubio moderate their stances on some social and moral matters, too, if their advisors are checking the wind. They might be risking being seen as culture war relics who will goose voter turnout on the Democratic side if they don't. Just in the last two days, Walker, unprompted, defended a mandatory ultrasounds as a prerequisite to abortion bill he signed (with a clumsy quote that made it sound like the reasoning behind his support of the bill was how cool ultrasound pictures were and everyone should get to have one), and Rubio went on a radio show and called same sex marriage a "clear and present danger" to Christianity. I don't think they want to be trumpeting those positions if they want to be President in 2017.

[Duvall]

I would not be surprised to see guys like Walker and Rubio moderate their stances on some social and moral matters, too. They might be risking being seen as culture war relics who will goose voter turnout on the Democratic side if they don't. Just in the last two days, Walker, unprompted, defended a mandatory ultrasounds as a prerequisite to abortion bill he signed (with a clumsy quote that made it sound like the reasoning behind his support of the bill was how cool ultrasound pictures were and everyone should get to have one), and Rubio went on a radio show and called same sex marriage a "clear and present danger" to Christianity. That stuff may still play in Oklahoma, of course, but it looks as though the era of a social issues Republican having legitimate national aspirations may be over. At least for the time being.

Can they, though? Putting aside the question of whether a candidate can moderate his stances on social issues and win a Republican presidential nomination (not really), both Rubio and Walker are true believers. It's not clear that they could walk back their views successfully even if they wanted.

All that said, it's entirely possible for a social issues Republican to win the presidency if he's able to get the backing of the Republican establishment as well, which Walker or Rubio easily could. Ideology is basically irrelevant in the general election - either the economy will be good enough in the first half of 2016 to get Clinton elected, or it won't be good enough and the Republican nominee wins.

[Wander]

Moreover, as that new Gallup polling on social policy from a few days ago seems to evidence, his social positions are way too extreme for the broader public these days. Whereas four or, especially eight years ago, being an outspoken opponent of abortion, same sex marriage, or whatever else was not a particular hindrance for a Republican, and probably helped in their primary field, it's trending toward being a straight up negative, even in some Republican primary contests. This is why Hucakabee also has zero chance. It's not just that he and Santorum have been completely outside the public arena since the last cycle; it's that the nation has apparently accelerated making a significant move away from their social stances over that time. They're considerably less electable in a national contest now than they were just four years ago. That stuff may still play in Oklahoma, of course, but it looks as though the era of a social issues Republican having legitimate national aspirations may be over. At least for the time being.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/am...al-issues.aspx

I would not be surprised to see guys like Walker and Rubio moderate their stances on some social and moral matters, too, if their advisors are checking the wind. They might be risking being seen as culture war relics who will goose voter turnout on the Democratic side if they don't. Just in the last two days, Walker, unprompted, defended a mandatory ultrasounds as a prerequisite to abortion bill he signed (with a clumsy quote that made it sound like the reasoning behind his support of the bill was how cool ultrasound pictures were and everyone should get to have one), and Rubio went on a radio show and called same sex marriage a "clear and present danger" to Christianity. I don't think they want to be trumpeting those positions if they want to be President in 2017.

For same sex marriage - absolutely agreed. But my understanding on the polling numbers for other things - like abortion, climate change, views on race and religion - is that they actually haven't really been strongly trending the same way.

[Reisen]

For same sex marriage - absolutely agreed. But my understanding on the polling numbers for other things - like abortion, climate change, views on race and religion - is that they actually haven't really been strongly trending the same way.

This. Per the Gallup link, the American population has shifted left on gay marriage, sex outside marriage, pregnancy outside marriage, divorce, and stem cell research by double digit margins. But the move on abortion has been a fraction, and is still less than 50% (unlike the things I listed above).

I think Rubio's stance against gay marriage could hurt him, but I don't think abortion will be a key issue in this election for either side.

[Tommac]

Well, let's see if it's possible to discuss the presidential race without any snark or derision. *checks news sites*

Welp.

The local paper, The Times-News, in Burlington, NC buried it's coverage of Santorum's announcement in the back pages of section C this morning. I guess I thought it should have been a little more newsworthy than that.

[luvdahops]

This. Per the Gallup link, the American population has shifted left on gay marriage, sex outside marriage, pregnancy outside marriage, divorce, and stem cell research by double digit margins. But the move on abortion has been a fraction, and is still less than 50% (unlike the things I listed above).

I think Rubio's stance against gay marriage could hurt him, but I don't think abortion will be a key issue in this election for either side.

I have not seen recent data, but I am under the impression that public attitudes on abortion, at least at a high level, have been remarkably static going back to the 70s. By high level, I mean between the basic 3-choices of: illegal in all cases, legal with restrictions and legal in all cases. Something in the neighborhood of 25/50/25, with periodic movements of a few points, pretty consistently over time.

[Tom B.]

For same sex marriage - absolutely agreed. But my understanding on the polling numbers for other things - like abortion, climate change, views on race and religion - is that they actually haven't really been strongly trending the same way.

I think it's a little of both. On same-sex marriage, there's definitely been a lot of movement in a relatively short amount of time.

On abortion, as others have pointed out, I think those numbers have been fairly static for a while. It's a really hard issue to poll, though. For many people, I think a lot depends on specific circumstances, and most polls don't do nuance well. I think most people think of themselves as "somewhere in the middle" on this issue, which is why we typically see a breakdown in which some respondents take the absolutist positions on either end, but the biggest group of respondents takes the "legal in some cases but not others" or "legal but with restrictions" option. If you fancy yourself as moderate, you're most likely going to choose the option that's presented as the middle road between two extremes, even if it doesn't satisfactorily capture your beliefs in full.

(I think a more interesting poll would be to present only the two absolutist options -- legal in all cases, or never legal in any cases -- and tell people that those are the only two choices and they must choose one or the other. I'd also like pollsters to ask people how they would feel about a restriction that wouldn't significantly affect the ability of a wealthy woman to obtain an abortion, but would make it much harder for a poor woman to obtain one, as that's often the net practical effect of many restrictions that are enacted. But I digress...)

On climate change -- in particular, the issue of whether human activities are causing climate change -- I think there's been some movement towards greater acceptance of the position that climate change is happening and that human activity is a primary cause, though I don't think the movement has been as dramatic as it has been on same-sex marriage.

On religion generally, there have been some well-publicized surveys recently suggesting that: (a) the percentage of people who don't affiliate with any religious faith is on the rise; (b) the percentages of people identifying as Christian (i.e., mainline Protestant, evangelical Protestant, or Catholic) have been dropping; and (c) the median ages of people who identify as some form of Christian have been rising, while the median age of the "unaffiliateds" is much lower. The take-home conclusion from these surveys has been that Millennials (so far, at least) seem to be embracing secularism noticeably more than previous generations, and that Christian communities are not pulling in a sufficient number of young adherents to null out the effect as their current adherents age and die off.

How this figures into the 2016 election is anyone's guess. If the secular proportion of the electorate is indeed growing, that would seem to favor the Democratic candidate -- but if that portion of the electorate is concentrated in younger voters, it's hardly a guarantee of success, as younger voters typically turn out less than older ones. President Obama bucked that trend somewhat by getting younger voters to turn out in greater numbers (though they still lagged the participation rates of older voters) -- will Hillary be able to do the same, or will turnout among younger voters regress to the mean once Obama is no longer on the ticket?

[Bob Green]

On religion generally, there have been some well-publicized surveys recently suggesting that: (a) the percentage of people who don't affiliate with any religious faith is on the rise; (b) the percentages of people identifying as Christian (i.e., mainline Protestant, evangelical Protestant, or Catholic) have been dropping; and (c) the median ages of people who identify as some form of Christian have been rising, while the median age of the "unaffiliateds" is much lower. The take-home conclusion from these surveys has been that Millennials (so far, at least) seem to be embracing secularism noticeably more than previous generations, and that Christian communities are not pulling in a sufficient number of young adherents to null out the effect as their current adherents age and die off.

Over the long run, this trend will help the GOP, although the effect certainly will not be felt in 2016. The Republican Party has been hurt badly over the previous ~ 20 years by the uncompromising Religious Right blindly zeroing in on topics, which alienate the at large voting public.

[davekay1971]

I would prefer to see candidates not moderate or change their stance on social issues based on polling, but I know that's just a silly idealistic POV. We saw Obama "evolve" from anti-gay-marriage to pro-gay-marriage when the polling data moved strongly in favor of gay marriage. We have seen HRC do the same over the same course of time. We consistently see Republican candidates frame themselves as conservative social warriors until they get the nomination, then try to change the subject in the general election. It's politics, right? Why say what you actually think?

Personally, I'm happy to see the American population move in favor of gay marriage and I hope the Republican party follows suit...not because polling moves that way, but because the candidates truly believe in that. I have never understood a candidate who supports a government that is strictly bound by the Constitution also supporting a government that forbids gay marriage at a federal level - the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive. Let's say a politician holds a traditional Christian view of marriage (ie: a Catholic candidate who supports that the Catholic church will not perform gay marriages and defends the Catholic church's right to refuse to do so). If that politician believes in Constitutional limits on the federal government, he/she should take the stance that "I don't believe two men can take a Catholic sacrament of marriage, but I also don't believe the federal government has any right to ban those two men from taking that sacrament in a church that supports it." Issue done, move on. Bob's right that the party has hurt itself by opening itself up to attacks from the Democratic Party on this issue, in which the Democratic Party position is much more popular.

The Republican candidates need to look at these social issues independently and decide, first, where they stand, and second, how to focus the campaign on other issues when they hold a viewpoint on a given social issue that is unpopular. Studies consistently show that climate change, for example, is a back burner issue in the minds of voters. If a candidate believes the jury is still out on whether or not man-made climate change exists, or has a measurable deleterious effect, or believes that we don't know enough yet to make large policy decions based on what science we have, the candidate is not going to be hurt significantly by being attacked as a "Denier". On the other hand, if the candidate believes that banning gay marriage is the right thing to do AND is a national issue, that candidate is going to be hurt by attacks on that issue, and better have a game plan for changing the subject.

Of all the social issues, abortion is probably still the biggest mover in terms of elections. It affects everyone, particularly women, and has been a big reason why women have moved left. Polls do show that Americans are relatively split on the issue. Republicans finally grew a brain by embracing OTC oral contraceptives, and it's interesting to see Democratic reactions to that. Attempting to focus the conversation on when an intrauterine life is human life also has been effective. I think a Republican candidate who tries to argue that human life definitively begins at conception and federal law should embrace that is going to be hurt by that in the general election. A Republican candidate who supports OTC contraceptives AND who sticks to supporting more moderate measurs of protecting intrauterine life WITH certain exceptions and WHEN the baby is at a point of intrauterine development where the baby can convincingly be demonstrated to be a living human being will probably fare better on that tough issue in the general election.

[JasonEvans]

I would prefer to see candidates not moderate or change their stance on social issues based on polling, but I know that's just a silly idealistic POV. We saw Obama "evolve" from anti-gay-marriage to pro-gay-marriage when the polling data moved strongly in favor of gay marriage. We have seen HRC do the same over the same course of time. We consistently see Republican candidates frame themselves as conservative social warriors until they get the nomination, then try to change the subject in the general election. It's politics, right? Why say what you actually think?

I largely agree except I would note that the American people have changed their view on issues over time so why should politicians be restricted? A few years ago, my wife was opposed to gay marriage. Now (thanks to the endless advocacy of me and our two sons), she is in favor of it. If Hillary and Obama were once opposed, isn't it possible they too have evolved their views over time and developed a new perspective on the issue?

I agree that it is unseemly when politicians seem to shift views based only on polling, but I don't think polling is always the reason behind a change of opinion.

-Jason "there are people who vote social issues as their #1 concern, but the vast majority of the public votes based on economic factors" Evans

[Tom B.]

I would prefer to see candidates not moderate or change their stance on social issues based on polling, but I know that's just a silly idealistic POV. We saw Obama "evolve" from being cagey to being openly pro-gay-marriage when Joe Biden got "out on his skis" and forced President Obama's hand.

Fixed it for you.

I don't think Obama went from being anti-gay marriage to pro-gay marriage. He was always in favor of allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions, and said as much during the 2008 campaign. He just didn't use the word "marriage," even though he was talking about basically the same thing (from a civil/legal standpoint, anyway). I've always thought that his "evolution" over the last several years was really one of semantics, not core beliefs. His rhetoric changed, but I don't think his position really did.

Studies consistently show that climate change, for example, is a back burner issue in the minds of voters. If a candidate believes the jury is still out on whether or not man-made climate change exists, or has a measurable deleterious effect, or believes that we don't know enough yet to make large policy decions based on what science we have, the candidate is not going to be hurt significantly by being attacked as a "Denier".

One caveat -- there's a notable demographic variance on this depending on age. Climate change may be a back-burner issue for older voters, but among younger voters (those Millennials again), it's more important. They are, after all, the ones who'll spend the next 60-70 years dealing with its effects. Some demographers, sociologists, and pollsters have gone so far as to characterize climate change as one of three "gateway" issues (along with gay rights/gay marriage and, interestingly enough, immigration reform) that are proving to be significant obstacles to the Republican Party's ability to attract younger voters, even young voters who might otherwise be receptive to other messages that the party might try to offer.

Millennials have an enterprenurial streak and a libertarian streak, and after seeing the economy crash just as many of them were hitting the "real world," they may be increasingly receptive to basic tenets of fiscal conservatism (by which I mean, "Save regularly, invest wisely, spend judiciously, and be cautious about what 'adventures' you get involved in," not, "Slash taxes on the rich, go to war, and expect the budget to miraculously balance"). In theory, there should be some fertile ground among that generation for Republicans to cultivate. But Millennials are far more socially inclusive and accepting of alternative lifestyles and domestic arrangements -- not just gay marriage and adoption, but single-parent homes, or two-parent homes with unmarried parents -- and as discussed above, they're much more secular (or at least less dogmatic on religious issues). The longer the Republican Party and the most prominent conservative mouthpieces like Fox, Limbaugh, etc. remain not just instransigent, but aggressively confrontational, on these issues, the more trouble they'll continue to have with this generation.

[davekay1971]

From Bloomberg politics, another early Iowa poll.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ces-challenges

I like the way this article looks at a couple of different metrics other than just who led the poll of "would you vote for if the election were held today". That teases out some nice information: Rubio was the top 2nd choice candidate, which shows some potential for upward movement; also, using a scale that awards points scaled to how a respondent ranks a candidate (first choice, second choice, third choice, etc), Walker is heavily in the lead, but Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, and Paul all score well.

Among that group I'd suspect the HRC campaign is sacrificing chickens hoping to get Huckabee, a man who heavily motivates a fairly small, fixed base, but doesn't have much to offer independents or moderates.

I was a little surprised to see Walker so far out in front at this point. I thought his momentum had waned more than that.

Tom B: Great post.

[OldPhiKap]

From Bloomberg politics, another early Iowa poll.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ces-challenges

I like the way this article looks at a couple of different metrics other than just who led the poll of "would you vote for if the election were held today". That teases out some nice information: Rubio was the top 2nd choice candidate, which shows some potential for upward movement; also, using a scale that awards points scaled to how a respondent ranks a candidate (first choice, second choice, third choice, etc), Walker is heavily in the lead, but Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, and Paul all score well.

Among that group I'd suspect the HRC campaign is sacrificing chickens hoping to get Huckabee, a man who heavily motivates a fairly small, fixed base, but doesn't have much to offer independents or moderates.

I was a little surprised to see Walker so far out in front at this point. I thought his momentum had waned more than that.

Tom B: Great post.

"A new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows more than a third of likely Republican caucus participants say they would never vote for Bush—one factor in a new index to assess candidate strength in such a crowded field. Forty-three percent view him favorably, compared to 45 percent who view him unfavorably."

"At this early stage, Bush ranks first with none of the demographic groups broken out in the poll's results, although he is second behind Walker among those 65 and older, college graduates, and Catholics."


Uh oh.

[davekay1971]

"A new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows more than a third of likely Republican caucus participants say they would never vote for Bush—one factor in a new index to assess candidate strength in such a crowded field. Forty-three percent view him favorably, compared to 45 percent who view him unfavorably."

"At this early stage, Bush ranks first with none of the demographic groups broken out in the poll's results, although he is second behind Walker among those 65 and older, college graduates, and Catholics."


Uh oh.

Yep. Bush is in trouble. He already has as much name recognition as he's going to get, so his middling results in early polls, along with metrics like the one you quoted, have got to be disturbing to his campaign. To even get the Republican nomination, he's got to do a tremendous amount of work to convince Republican voters that he's different enough from his brother to earn their vote. He'll have to do even more work to get undecided voters to believe that in a general election. The stat that OPK pointed out shows he'd even have a lot of work to do to motivate his own party's base if he were the Repub nominee.

It's interesting that perception of W has actually improved in recent years. But I think the Republican establishment and the Jeb backers may have misinterpreted that. I don't have data to back this up, but I believe that W's improved public image does not reflect increased support of his policies or his performance as POTUS; rather it reflects people generally liking him better as an ex-President than they liked him as a President. W's Decision Points book, along with his behavior out of office (he's been generally gracious toward his successor and he has focused his public appearances more on charities such as the Wounded Warrior Project). All of that is well and good, but it doesn't imply the American people are excited for another Bush in the White House.

[OldPhiKap]

Yep. Bush is in trouble. He already has as much name recognition as he's going to get, so his middling results in early polls, along with metrics like the one you quoted, have got to be disturbing to his campaign. To even get the Republican nomination, he's got to do a tremendous amount of work to convince Republican voters that he's different enough from his brother to earn their vote. He'll have to do even more work to get undecided voters to believe that in a general election. The stat that OPK pointed out shows he'd even have a lot of work to do to motivate his own party's base if he were the Repub nominee.

It's interesting that perception of W has actually improved in recent years. But I think the Republican establishment and the Jeb backers may have misinterpreted that. I don't have data to back this up, but I believe that W's improved public image does not reflect increased support of his policies or his performance as POTUS; rather it reflects people generally liking him better as an ex-President than they liked him as a President. W's Decision Points book, along with his behavior out of office (he's been generally gracious toward his successor and he has focused his public appearances more on charities such as the Wounded Warrior Project). All of that is well and good, but it doesn't imply the American people are excited for another Bush in the White House.

You bring up a great point. Jimmy Carter has been a great ex-President. That doesn't mean folks would have wanted him back in the White House, though.

Still early in the process and the ad money has not yet saturated the market.

[davekay1971]

Another early poll, this time across parties, with bad news for HRC:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politi...ose/index.html

She still leads the likely R candidates, although her lead is slim, and virtually non-existent againt Rubio, Walker, and Paul (who's gender gap is a bad, bad sign if he becomes the Republican nominee). Once one of the R candidates breaks out as the favorite and begins to draw much more national attention, that will change the HRC vs (R candidate) polling significantly, no doubt.

What has got to be troubling for her supporters and team are the trends in public perception of her honesty, competance, and the ever-silly "does she care about people like me" question. I refer to that last one as silly, because I doubt many candidates in either party give a hoot about the details of the life of John and Jane Smith in Everytown, Flyover State. But it's a perception issue that does swing votes. In 2012, perception on that question was a significant factor in helping Obama and hurting Romney.

I think the trust issue is going to be tough for HRC. Trust, in the public eye as well as in personal relationships, once lost, is very hard to rebuild.

[cspan37421]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politi...ion/index.html

Yes, you heard right. Something tells me that Letterman, Stewart, or Colbert made a tongue-in-cheek metric system PSA video ...

anyway, it looks like Obama's beer summit diplomacy had little effect on Chafee. Who's going to want to sit down and have a pint with him now?