The Clinton Campaign scored a BIG win in the Nevada Caucus primaries last week. In yet another major test of her ability to recover from the massive loss suffered in New Hampshire, Hillary handily won the Nevada contest over Sanders. Even better, Sanders himself had raised expectations by announcing at a pre-election rally that he believed that his campaign would win the contest. He should have learned a lesson from the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire. Their pre-election spin was that a "win" for Hillary would be narrowing the gap between she and Bernie to a single-digit contest. Of course, that set up the idea that if she didn't get to within a single digit loss, the outcome would be a giant loss. And, it was. But, Bernie didn't learn.....
Hillary won the Nevada caucuses by nearly 6 points a single digit win. By all measures, for Senator Sanders, a total unknown in that neck of the woods just a few months ago, to come within 5 or 6 points of one of the best known and recognizable candidates that has ever run for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, would be a real "win." But, in the game of expectations, Sanders comments set the stage for a Clinton claim that the momentum had shifted, as expected, back to her and that there would be clear, if well-fought, and potentially storm-tossed, sailing ahead. With Super Tuesday looming next in line and with Hillary continuing to show strong support in the African-American community, expect yet another strong showing for Hillary next week. As with the Republican Primaries, it is getting harder to see a path for Senator Sanders to derail the march of the Clinton Campaign to the Nomination this summer. The Hillary train is rolling and will pick up steam and speed next week on Super Tuesday. Be there or be square....
Friday, February 26, 2016
SOUTH CAROLINA AND NEVADA.... Fade me......
WOW! Finally, the great cage fighting that we have all witnessed during the Republican debates preceding these primary elections.... did not shake up the Trump train. Instead, Trump, though under heavy attack, seemed to have survived and prospered. The Donald carried all of the South Carolina congressional districts and therefore was awarded every single delegate votes from the South Carolina in spite of endorsements from many SC Republican members of Congress, notably Trey (Howdy) Gowdy, and Nikki Haley, the popular Governor of the state who both endorsed Rubio.
The election did clear the field somewhat with Chris Christie leaving the race and, after spending more than $70 million, Jeb Bush. Bush, the early presumptive front-runner and brother to one President and son to another, with the bulk of the Republican establishment and campaign cash bulging out of two accounts - the direct campaign account and the "Super PAC' supporting Bush, never scored out of the single digits. So much for the role of: 1. the "establishment"; 2. the Bush legacy; and, 3. the influence of cash-in-the-bank.
And, then, there were 5. In order of finish, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Carson. And, in the western contest in Nevada, after yet another bruising debate loaded with personal attacks and insults, Trump again prevails - by an even larger margin - followed by Rubio who gained some space between he and Cruz. Though still close, Rubio has bested Cruz twice now and seems to be gaining ground over the Texas Senator, but not gaining on Trump. Kasich, the most moderate voice on the stage and the only Governor left in the contest came in a distant 4th, followed by Carson. My guess is that Kasich will remain in the contest until the mid-march primaries in the Midwest in the hope of gaining ground on the three front-runners, and staying alive as a moderate and reasonable alternative to the right-wing crowd currently dominating the field. Why Carson continues in the race, is a mystery. I cannot see any scenario in which Carson could prevail in the primaries or at the convention, should a brokered convention be the result of the primary season. Or, is Trump the moderate alternative??????
Trump has taken some unusual policy positions quite different from the others on the stage. These include saying that Planned Parenthood provides valuable and necessary services for women in America. Of course, he stated that he will not provide funding for abortions, mirroring the other candidate positions, and he states that he favors antiabortion exceptions for rape and incest - a position that Cruz opposes. He describes himself as a "deal-maker" rather than a purist advocate of "my way of the highway", he says he "likes" single-payer systems that work in other places, unlike his opponents, he opposes recent trade deals and supports higher tariffs, and opposes any cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and, instead, says that we need to increase benefits provided by these bedrock progressive social programs. It seems that the Donald can say anything at anytime
and grow stronger or, at least, not lose supporter to other candidates. Perhaps we have entered not only an anti-establishment political phase and an "outsider" positive environment, but a post-policy era as well. Or, perhaps the Trump strength results from being a self-funded candidate and appears to be a strong leader, not afraid to speak his mind. Maybe the Republican primary electorate is seeing him as uncontrolled, unbought by Beltway money and influence, and unafraid. At this writing, it appears that, barring some catastrophic event, it is difficult to see how either Rubio or Cruz can overtake Trump in the remaining primaries or how Kasich or Carson can long survive. By the end of this month, look for the field to lose 2 candidates (those in single digits), and possibly 3, if Senator Rubio loses the Florida primary election (notably a winner-take-all election) to Trump. Right now, current poll data reveals that Trump is leading Rubio in Florida and is closely behind Cruz in Texas. With the Texas primary next week, should Trump beat Cruz, the anti-Trump Republican cabal plan could be that Cruz drops out and endorses Rubio before the Florida primary in the hope that at least one of the pair survives to continue the battle. If this sound a bit far fetched, I agree, And, that's why I say that I cannot really see a path for any of the non-Trump candidates to take Trump out as the nominee of the Republican Party.
And, now.... onto Super Tuesday and the thirteen state primaries next week.
The election did clear the field somewhat with Chris Christie leaving the race and, after spending more than $70 million, Jeb Bush. Bush, the early presumptive front-runner and brother to one President and son to another, with the bulk of the Republican establishment and campaign cash bulging out of two accounts - the direct campaign account and the "Super PAC' supporting Bush, never scored out of the single digits. So much for the role of: 1. the "establishment"; 2. the Bush legacy; and, 3. the influence of cash-in-the-bank.
And, then, there were 5. In order of finish, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Carson. And, in the western contest in Nevada, after yet another bruising debate loaded with personal attacks and insults, Trump again prevails - by an even larger margin - followed by Rubio who gained some space between he and Cruz. Though still close, Rubio has bested Cruz twice now and seems to be gaining ground over the Texas Senator, but not gaining on Trump. Kasich, the most moderate voice on the stage and the only Governor left in the contest came in a distant 4th, followed by Carson. My guess is that Kasich will remain in the contest until the mid-march primaries in the Midwest in the hope of gaining ground on the three front-runners, and staying alive as a moderate and reasonable alternative to the right-wing crowd currently dominating the field. Why Carson continues in the race, is a mystery. I cannot see any scenario in which Carson could prevail in the primaries or at the convention, should a brokered convention be the result of the primary season. Or, is Trump the moderate alternative??????
Trump has taken some unusual policy positions quite different from the others on the stage. These include saying that Planned Parenthood provides valuable and necessary services for women in America. Of course, he stated that he will not provide funding for abortions, mirroring the other candidate positions, and he states that he favors antiabortion exceptions for rape and incest - a position that Cruz opposes. He describes himself as a "deal-maker" rather than a purist advocate of "my way of the highway", he says he "likes" single-payer systems that work in other places, unlike his opponents, he opposes recent trade deals and supports higher tariffs, and opposes any cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and, instead, says that we need to increase benefits provided by these bedrock progressive social programs. It seems that the Donald can say anything at anytime
and grow stronger or, at least, not lose supporter to other candidates. Perhaps we have entered not only an anti-establishment political phase and an "outsider" positive environment, but a post-policy era as well. Or, perhaps the Trump strength results from being a self-funded candidate and appears to be a strong leader, not afraid to speak his mind. Maybe the Republican primary electorate is seeing him as uncontrolled, unbought by Beltway money and influence, and unafraid. At this writing, it appears that, barring some catastrophic event, it is difficult to see how either Rubio or Cruz can overtake Trump in the remaining primaries or how Kasich or Carson can long survive. By the end of this month, look for the field to lose 2 candidates (those in single digits), and possibly 3, if Senator Rubio loses the Florida primary election (notably a winner-take-all election) to Trump. Right now, current poll data reveals that Trump is leading Rubio in Florida and is closely behind Cruz in Texas. With the Texas primary next week, should Trump beat Cruz, the anti-Trump Republican cabal plan could be that Cruz drops out and endorses Rubio before the Florida primary in the hope that at least one of the pair survives to continue the battle. If this sound a bit far fetched, I agree, And, that's why I say that I cannot really see a path for any of the non-Trump candidates to take Trump out as the nominee of the Republican Party.
And, now.... onto Super Tuesday and the thirteen state primaries next week.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE "BERN".....
OK.... so Hillary didn't have a really good day in New Hampshire.... but, didn't everyone expect that she would lose NH badly from the start? As much as she wanted to narrow the gap there, it didn't happen. So, the outcome was no surprise, but dig down in the data and you find some information that gives one pause in the Clinton Campaign. The most disturbing outcomes are really two-fold: 1. the great disparity between Sanders and Clinton among young folks (gigantic), and, 2. the fact that Hillary also lost young women by a wide margin. For the sake of brevity, lets say that both data sets reflect one issue - the youth vote - and that the sub-set of young women is merely reflective of the age factor.
Now, you really can't say that the Democratic side is an inter-generational contest. After all, Bernie is older than Hillary by a bit. So, how is it that he bests her in this cohort? After all, both are really "establishment" candidates. Bernie has served in elective office for decades and Hillary is ... well ... Hillary. So, that's not it. Some say that his position on "free" college education is the key. Perhaps so... at least this may have some relevance and impact on the generation of voters that came away from their education years with gigantic debt or, seeing few job prospects, refused to go into heavy debt and gave up college altogether. Hillary is also supporting a better opportunity to attend college, just not free altogether. In either case, its about money... and lots of it. I think that this is really the problem theme for Hillary and the real issue - sometimes stated and other times unstated - that has the potential to once again sink the Clinton campaign - MONEY.
Lets take it as a given that young voters - as a voting class - are most likely still the most idealistic segment of the voting population. And, in fact, they are rapidly becoming the largest voting block - if they vote. Further, while they may be idealistic and still view the future as likely better than the present (eternal youth optimism), they are also the most skeptical generation in the past 50 years. With 43% as non-white, and feeling economically vulnerable, polling finds that just 20% say that most people can be trusted. That is, 80% of all people are suspect. And, of course, "politicians" fall far below that measure in "trustworthiness." Assuming all that is accurate, then it makes sense that young folks are suspicious of Hillary Clinton's past - the scandals, the history, and, more recently, the Republican attacks on her trustworthiness around the issues of Benghazi and the email issue. Hillary's response has been, "trust me" because I have been there for decades on issues that you care about. Not bad, until we get to the other issue that job- poor millennials care about - greed.
Historically, people without money really do not trust people with money. The poor don't trust the rich to act on their behalf or in their best interests - it reeks of "trickle-down economics." Instead, they think that the rich (owners, CEOs, managers, Boards of Directors, Hedge Fund Managers, Wall Street, etc. - the Monied class) are driven by wealth building and greed and will, therefore, act in their own interests and not for the benefit of working folks. For decades, this has become one of the bedrock beliefs and campaign themes of the Democratic Party in campaign after campaign and in debate on a wide variety of issues. It is the basis of Republican complaints regarding Democrats playing the "class warfare" card. Viewed through this prism, the Clinton Campaign has a serious problem.
Benghazi and emails aside, the fact that the monied class has had a history of "buying" elections with their excessive wealth through campaign contributions. Now, with the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, and through stealthy "Super PACs" channeling hundreds of millions of dollars into favored candidates, including right-wing conservative extremists, voters see a nexus between the power of money and influence corrupting good judgment and poisoning fair public policy debate through the "strings" attached to millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions. This is especially true of young voters, including young women, who believe that 80% of people cannot be trusted!
In my view, Hillary's primary problem is that she is entrapped between calling for the end of big money's influence on politics, the repeal of "Citizens United" and Super Pacs, and the out-sized roles that millionaires and billionaires play in our public discourse/elections, and accepting big contributions herself. Hillary has a Super PAC and she has accepted very large contributions into her campaign and into her PAC. This cash come from the very same millionaire class and Wall Street players that the Millennials distrust. This is not an issue lost on the Sanders campaign.
Bernie Sanders and his campaign team are taking the more cautious route at this time. They are not attacking Hillary as a "liar" or saying that she "cannot be trusted." They are well aware that she may very well be the candidate of the party at the end of the day. But, the recent (post Iowa) and constant refrain about Hillary accepting large amounts of "Wall Street" money (remember 'Occupy Wall Street'?), and having a large Super PAC stuffed with contributions from the rich, play on this theme and either inject or underscore a Hillary mistrust factor. The Sanders Campaign message is, Hillary says she will fight the Big Money interests including Wall Street and Big Banks and the role of "dark money" and Super PACs and be an advocate for social justice, those left behind, and for a society filled with opportunity for all, while she accepts giant waves of cash from wealthy donors and corporations. The message is a vague feeling that she may be just another "bought" candidate who had to make promises for that money. This is the basic Trump campaign theme succeeding on the republican side. Sending this message to an audience that already mistrusts their political establishment elders by a wide margin, may send Hillary into the "not trustworthy" category and could very well frustrate her campaign and deny our democracy the very first woman president in US history - evidently, not something that young millennium women care about at all.
Two other factors could make a difference. One is the racial divide between Clinton and Sanders. African American and Latino voters tend to wade through all of the verbal combat and, instead, rely on history to point to someone who has been in their corner for years and not just during this election cycle. This is the Hillary strong suit. The other factor is that young voters (18-29), the very cohort that is causing the Clinton Campaign fits, has a spotty turnout history. In 2012, just 38% of Hispanic voters cast ballots compared to 55% of Black voters and 48% of white millennials. Hillary needs to empower the Black vote, register and get out the Hispanic vote, and keep her fingers crossed that young women will "see the light" before election day. As is often the case in a political contest - as in much of life - the future of the nation may very well be determined by who shows up.
Now, you really can't say that the Democratic side is an inter-generational contest. After all, Bernie is older than Hillary by a bit. So, how is it that he bests her in this cohort? After all, both are really "establishment" candidates. Bernie has served in elective office for decades and Hillary is ... well ... Hillary. So, that's not it. Some say that his position on "free" college education is the key. Perhaps so... at least this may have some relevance and impact on the generation of voters that came away from their education years with gigantic debt or, seeing few job prospects, refused to go into heavy debt and gave up college altogether. Hillary is also supporting a better opportunity to attend college, just not free altogether. In either case, its about money... and lots of it. I think that this is really the problem theme for Hillary and the real issue - sometimes stated and other times unstated - that has the potential to once again sink the Clinton campaign - MONEY.
Lets take it as a given that young voters - as a voting class - are most likely still the most idealistic segment of the voting population. And, in fact, they are rapidly becoming the largest voting block - if they vote. Further, while they may be idealistic and still view the future as likely better than the present (eternal youth optimism), they are also the most skeptical generation in the past 50 years. With 43% as non-white, and feeling economically vulnerable, polling finds that just 20% say that most people can be trusted. That is, 80% of all people are suspect. And, of course, "politicians" fall far below that measure in "trustworthiness." Assuming all that is accurate, then it makes sense that young folks are suspicious of Hillary Clinton's past - the scandals, the history, and, more recently, the Republican attacks on her trustworthiness around the issues of Benghazi and the email issue. Hillary's response has been, "trust me" because I have been there for decades on issues that you care about. Not bad, until we get to the other issue that job- poor millennials care about - greed.
Historically, people without money really do not trust people with money. The poor don't trust the rich to act on their behalf or in their best interests - it reeks of "trickle-down economics." Instead, they think that the rich (owners, CEOs, managers, Boards of Directors, Hedge Fund Managers, Wall Street, etc. - the Monied class) are driven by wealth building and greed and will, therefore, act in their own interests and not for the benefit of working folks. For decades, this has become one of the bedrock beliefs and campaign themes of the Democratic Party in campaign after campaign and in debate on a wide variety of issues. It is the basis of Republican complaints regarding Democrats playing the "class warfare" card. Viewed through this prism, the Clinton Campaign has a serious problem.
Benghazi and emails aside, the fact that the monied class has had a history of "buying" elections with their excessive wealth through campaign contributions. Now, with the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, and through stealthy "Super PACs" channeling hundreds of millions of dollars into favored candidates, including right-wing conservative extremists, voters see a nexus between the power of money and influence corrupting good judgment and poisoning fair public policy debate through the "strings" attached to millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions. This is especially true of young voters, including young women, who believe that 80% of people cannot be trusted!
In my view, Hillary's primary problem is that she is entrapped between calling for the end of big money's influence on politics, the repeal of "Citizens United" and Super Pacs, and the out-sized roles that millionaires and billionaires play in our public discourse/elections, and accepting big contributions herself. Hillary has a Super PAC and she has accepted very large contributions into her campaign and into her PAC. This cash come from the very same millionaire class and Wall Street players that the Millennials distrust. This is not an issue lost on the Sanders campaign.
Bernie Sanders and his campaign team are taking the more cautious route at this time. They are not attacking Hillary as a "liar" or saying that she "cannot be trusted." They are well aware that she may very well be the candidate of the party at the end of the day. But, the recent (post Iowa) and constant refrain about Hillary accepting large amounts of "Wall Street" money (remember 'Occupy Wall Street'?), and having a large Super PAC stuffed with contributions from the rich, play on this theme and either inject or underscore a Hillary mistrust factor. The Sanders Campaign message is, Hillary says she will fight the Big Money interests including Wall Street and Big Banks and the role of "dark money" and Super PACs and be an advocate for social justice, those left behind, and for a society filled with opportunity for all, while she accepts giant waves of cash from wealthy donors and corporations. The message is a vague feeling that she may be just another "bought" candidate who had to make promises for that money. This is the basic Trump campaign theme succeeding on the republican side. Sending this message to an audience that already mistrusts their political establishment elders by a wide margin, may send Hillary into the "not trustworthy" category and could very well frustrate her campaign and deny our democracy the very first woman president in US history - evidently, not something that young millennium women care about at all.
Two other factors could make a difference. One is the racial divide between Clinton and Sanders. African American and Latino voters tend to wade through all of the verbal combat and, instead, rely on history to point to someone who has been in their corner for years and not just during this election cycle. This is the Hillary strong suit. The other factor is that young voters (18-29), the very cohort that is causing the Clinton Campaign fits, has a spotty turnout history. In 2012, just 38% of Hispanic voters cast ballots compared to 55% of Black voters and 48% of white millennials. Hillary needs to empower the Black vote, register and get out the Hispanic vote, and keep her fingers crossed that young women will "see the light" before election day. As is often the case in a political contest - as in much of life - the future of the nation may very well be determined by who shows up.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
ONE DOWN..... MANY TO GO.... THE IOWA REPORT.
Iowa was a real learning experience. So, what did we learn? First, that the electorate on both sides of the isle is not happy with the establishment parties. And, having the support of the in-place "establishment" turns out not to be a campaign asset in 2016.
Worse on the Republican side, the two leading candidates who received more than 50% of a record caucus turnout - Cruz and Trump - far outpaced the "establishment" candidates - Governors Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Huckabee. Other governors who had already withdrawn - Perry, Walker, Jindal, and Patacki - add to the notion that running for President from the position of Governor of a state did not resonate with the Republican electorate. Instead, the Tea Party outsider conservatism seem to be the thematic that works in 2016. But for Fiorina, Cruz, Trump, and Carson all stand on that spot, more or less, and accounted for more than 60% of the votes cast. Marco Rubio, who had a very good night and created some real momentum in coming in a close third place to Trumps second place finish, has strong Tea Party roots but has taken some more moderate positions in the past, notably on immigration policy. He did reverse course, but Cruz has hammered him on immigration as a supporter of "amnesty" without stop during the course of the campaign. Add the Rubio votes to the total, and the Tea Party conservative road is paved in electoral gold. At least 85% of the Iowa votes cast in the Republican race voted the ultra-conservative line! The Democratic Party is a different story.
Second, we learned that Democrats are not especially delighted with the "establishment" either. Hillary felt the "Bern" last night as Bernie Sanders came from a 40% polling deficit to wrestle the Clinton campaign into a virtual tie in Iowa. Although Hillary comes away with an extremely narrow win - the closest primary caucus outcome in Iowa history - and more delegate votes (thanks to pledged "Super Delegates"), this outcome is not good Clinton news. Sanders, an outsider running as a "Democratic Socialist" in the Democratic Primary, has captured the liberal wing of the party along with many progressives. The Iowa youth vote was especially skewered toward Bernie by a 85/15 split in favor of Sanders - quite the capture - and includes many younger women, the very group that Hillary hoped to attract as the first woman to become a major party presidential nominee. And, now it's on to New Hampshire where Bernie is expected to carry the state by a wide margin. If Clinton can close the new Hampshire gap as Sanders closed the Iowa gap, her campaign will recover some of its shine. If not, it will be game on in the southern primaries.
Third, we learned that the "dark money" of the Super Pacs" may not have the influence that was expected. The Bush campaign - and others - spent an ocean of cash on mail and TV/Radio with little apparent impact on the outcome in Iowa. Perhaps the Super Pacs, with their emphasis on media persuasion, will have greater impact on the "primary" states rather than those with a caucus system in place. Time will tell.
Fourth, we learned that the more contentious the race, the greater number of candidates and divergence of views, and the more vigorous the campaigns are, the greater the stimulus for a high turnout. The Iowa caucus turnout - on both sides - was the largest on record. Is that a function of the number of candidates in the contest on both sides? Is it related to more TV ads, mail, and personal visits during the contest? Is it more about the strident nature of the campaign rhetoric? The electoral jury is still out on this one. Still, new records were set. Perhaps it is a function of the anger, frustration, and disappointment that a majority of voters presently feel about the performance of their government. And, maybe it is also related to the very historically low positive polling numbers for congress.
And, fifth, we learned that there exists a large divide in the Iowa electorate. The right-wing, conservative, and evangelical segment of the electorate is a far policy cry from the young, liberal, progressive, and 47% self-identified "socialists" voters on the opposite side of the street. Now, THAT is a battleground.
On to New Hampshire.
Worse on the Republican side, the two leading candidates who received more than 50% of a record caucus turnout - Cruz and Trump - far outpaced the "establishment" candidates - Governors Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Huckabee. Other governors who had already withdrawn - Perry, Walker, Jindal, and Patacki - add to the notion that running for President from the position of Governor of a state did not resonate with the Republican electorate. Instead, the Tea Party outsider conservatism seem to be the thematic that works in 2016. But for Fiorina, Cruz, Trump, and Carson all stand on that spot, more or less, and accounted for more than 60% of the votes cast. Marco Rubio, who had a very good night and created some real momentum in coming in a close third place to Trumps second place finish, has strong Tea Party roots but has taken some more moderate positions in the past, notably on immigration policy. He did reverse course, but Cruz has hammered him on immigration as a supporter of "amnesty" without stop during the course of the campaign. Add the Rubio votes to the total, and the Tea Party conservative road is paved in electoral gold. At least 85% of the Iowa votes cast in the Republican race voted the ultra-conservative line! The Democratic Party is a different story.
Second, we learned that Democrats are not especially delighted with the "establishment" either. Hillary felt the "Bern" last night as Bernie Sanders came from a 40% polling deficit to wrestle the Clinton campaign into a virtual tie in Iowa. Although Hillary comes away with an extremely narrow win - the closest primary caucus outcome in Iowa history - and more delegate votes (thanks to pledged "Super Delegates"), this outcome is not good Clinton news. Sanders, an outsider running as a "Democratic Socialist" in the Democratic Primary, has captured the liberal wing of the party along with many progressives. The Iowa youth vote was especially skewered toward Bernie by a 85/15 split in favor of Sanders - quite the capture - and includes many younger women, the very group that Hillary hoped to attract as the first woman to become a major party presidential nominee. And, now it's on to New Hampshire where Bernie is expected to carry the state by a wide margin. If Clinton can close the new Hampshire gap as Sanders closed the Iowa gap, her campaign will recover some of its shine. If not, it will be game on in the southern primaries.
Third, we learned that the "dark money" of the Super Pacs" may not have the influence that was expected. The Bush campaign - and others - spent an ocean of cash on mail and TV/Radio with little apparent impact on the outcome in Iowa. Perhaps the Super Pacs, with their emphasis on media persuasion, will have greater impact on the "primary" states rather than those with a caucus system in place. Time will tell.
Fourth, we learned that the more contentious the race, the greater number of candidates and divergence of views, and the more vigorous the campaigns are, the greater the stimulus for a high turnout. The Iowa caucus turnout - on both sides - was the largest on record. Is that a function of the number of candidates in the contest on both sides? Is it related to more TV ads, mail, and personal visits during the contest? Is it more about the strident nature of the campaign rhetoric? The electoral jury is still out on this one. Still, new records were set. Perhaps it is a function of the anger, frustration, and disappointment that a majority of voters presently feel about the performance of their government. And, maybe it is also related to the very historically low positive polling numbers for congress.
And, fifth, we learned that there exists a large divide in the Iowa electorate. The right-wing, conservative, and evangelical segment of the electorate is a far policy cry from the young, liberal, progressive, and 47% self-identified "socialists" voters on the opposite side of the street. Now, THAT is a battleground.
On to New Hampshire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)