2016 elections - because it's never too early

[OttoVonBismarck]

Everything I've read has said Bush and Rubio won't drop out before Florida (which is winner take all) so those guys are in until after Super Tuesday (Florida is 3/15 like Ohio), and I've heard Kasich won't drop out before Ohio.

So here is the thing. No one can give any impression of anything otherwise, or they lose support as the walking dead candidate. You are in the race all the way until the day you drop out.

Ohio and Florida are both on 3/15 and winner take all. The polls will show well in advance if B/R/K are in contention to win those states. Rubio is a young Florida politician who will not want the humiliation of coming out of Florida with zero delegates. Kasich coming out of Ohio with zero delegates would really undermine his term as governor. Neither of them will want to be the guys tossing the nomination to Trump, and if they aren't the most viable candidate coming out of Super Tuesday will be under immense party pressure to drop out. Bush is sort of a retired politician, so in some ways he doesn't have much to lose, but he also won't want to tarnish his name with a pointless run for president that can't do anything other than make Trump the nominee.

So basically, by 3/8, I think R/B/K is down to one candidate. Probably named Rubio, assuming he can do well in the next debates.

I agree all candidates have to say they'll stay in til the end, til their end. So none of these guys are saying "I'm staying in until 3/15", but a lot of analysts seem to expect they will. Now, if any of them have clearly lost 100% of all momentum they might drop out. But the thing is with the proportional votes on Super Tuesday, there's a chance all three of them could walk away with "some" delegates. They won't be above Trump or probably Cruz, but in the back of their mind they figure that the other two guy's in the "establishment lane" (which again, Rubio doesn't belong in, but whatever) will send their delegates to them when they drop out. So they start to think "well if I can pull off a win in my home state and grab all their delegates momentum can shift."

There's also some evidence, that Bush may be behaving irrationally toward Rubio. That mentor/mentee relationship is extremely broken, to the point Bush has seemed really committed to burying Rubio not just for this primary but "permanently" by going after him at a fundamental level to undermine the very idea of Rubio as a politician. I think Bush knows this is his last dance, so he may stay in til the money is gone.

Kasich too, actually. I don't know that he cares much about the rest of his term as Governor of Ohio, I think his governorship was primarily to fuel his Presidential ambitions. If those are dashed he may just be done. He's already had a long career in Congress in a high leadership position, so it's unlikely he has an interest in going back there. The only reason Kasich might do what you say is because he may feel he can come back in four years, with two full terms as Ohio Governor under his belt (and he'd probably need to hope and work to do some stuff in term two that he can campaign on.)

Like you say, some of RBK may be gone before Ohio/Florida vote, but even if they all three stay through Super Tuesday I think things could be problematic. It'll be interesting to see if Trump can be defeated in a 1v1 versus Cruz if the establishment lane all just sorta realize this isn't their year. There was a national poll that came out today from a group called Morning Consult (a group I'd never heard of, and who has no history in RCP or FiveThirtyEight, and who look like they set up shop near the end of 2015) that shows Trump at 44% nationally and Rubio down to 10%, in a sample size of 700 odd Republican likely voters.

Now, with the appropriate skepticism of a new polling outfit whose reliability we don't know, if some other more respect polls in the coming week show a similar trend than that suggests things are changing--and Trump's ceiling is higher than perhaps suspected. It would also suggest that at least some of the supporters of the guys who have dropped out and Rubio who has lost supporters, have gone to Trump. If that's true then he could easily surge past 50% if it's just him and Cruz--even if he only gets 1 in 10 of the other candidate's voters as they drop out, he'd still probably have 50%+1 which would probably be reflected in him beating Cruz in delegates over the course of a primary campaign.

[jimmy olsen]

Otto, wouldn't Kaisch have a good shot against Sherrod Brown in the 2018 Senate Race?

His previous service in congress was in the House, and the Senate is a significant upgrade.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I dunno maybe, Sherrod Brown is popular with a swathe of Ohioans and killed the Ohio Treasurer in a head to head in 2012. Kasich won big in his gubernatorial reelection though, so it'd be an interesting match up. The Senate is an improvement over the House, but Kasich wasn't a back bencher in the House, he was the Chairman of the Budget Committee, and if he hadn't announced his retirement in 2000 to run for President he very likely would've become Speaker at some point in the 2000s, maybe in place of Boehner. The fact he then went private sector and built up for a governor run suggests he has been eyeing the Presidency for a long, long time, I'm not sure he's interested in the Senate or not, I think if a legislative career is what he wanted he was already pretty well set up for that. He's instead made moves designed around becoming President, and I'm not convinced he'll stay in politics after his term as Governor if he feels the Presidency isn't a possibility--but I could be wrong, I don't know Kasich or anything.

He just "comes off" more as a Jeb Bush type to me, who essentially retired from politics until it was ripe to run for President. If Jeb had just been interested in being involved in politics generally he could've probably ran for Senate successfully in Florida, and rambled around til he was in his 80s as an "elder statesman." But I think Jeb was only interested in using Florida's Governor's mansion as a springboard to the Presidency, and I think Kasich might be similar with Ohio.

[DGuller]

Jim Gilmore suspends campaign

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/jim-gilmore-suspends-campaign-219220

Damn, pretty bad year to be a governor.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As grumbler said Jim Gilmore wasn't much of a Governor. In general Virginia doesn't produce many good governors, I have always theorized the single 4 year term limit (you can run again, but have to sit out 4 years, and only 2 people since 1830 have done this) makes it a much less attractive office so you don't get the quality national political aspirants other similarly sized states get.

[alfred russel]

I agree all candidates have to say they'll stay in til the end, til their end. So none of these guys are saying "I'm staying in until 3/15", but a lot of analysts seem to expect they will. Now, if any of them have clearly lost 100% of all momentum they might drop out. But the thing is with the proportional votes on Super Tuesday, there's a chance all three of them could walk away with "some" delegates. They won't be above Trump or probably Cruz, but in the back of their mind they figure that the other two guy's in the "establishment lane" (which again, Rubio doesn't belong in, but whatever) will send their delegates to them when they drop out. So they start to think "well if I can pull off a win in my home state and grab all their delegates momentum can shift."

There's also some evidence, that Bush may be behaving irrationally toward Rubio. That mentor/mentee relationship is extremely broken, to the point Bush has seemed really committed to burying Rubio not just for this primary but "permanently" by going after him at a fundamental level to undermine the very idea of Rubio as a politician. I think Bush knows this is his last dance, so he may stay in til the money is gone.

Kasich too, actually. I don't know that he cares much about the rest of his term as Governor of Ohio, I think his governorship was primarily to fuel his Presidential ambitions. If those are dashed he may just be done. He's already had a long career in Congress in a high leadership position, so it's unlikely he has an interest in going back there. The only reason Kasich might do what you say is because he may feel he can come back in four years, with two full terms as Ohio Governor under his belt (and he'd probably need to hope and work to do some stuff in term two that he can campaign on.)

Like you say, some of RBK may be gone before Ohio/Florida vote, but even if they all three stay through Super Tuesday I think things could be problematic. It'll be interesting to see if Trump can be defeated in a 1v1 versus Cruz if the establishment lane all just sorta realize this isn't their year. There was a national poll that came out today from a group called Morning Consult (a group I'd never heard of, and who has no history in RCP or FiveThirtyEight, and who look like they set up shop near the end of 2015) that shows Trump at 44% nationally and Rubio down to 10%, in a sample size of 700 odd Republican likely voters.

Now, with the appropriate skepticism of a new polling outfit whose reliability we don't know, if some other more respect polls in the coming week show a similar trend than that suggests things are changing--and Trump's ceiling is higher than perhaps suspected. It would also suggest that at least some of the supporters of the guys who have dropped out and Rubio who has lost supporters, have gone to Trump. If that's true then he could easily surge past 50% if it's just him and Cruz--even if he only gets 1 in 10 of the other candidate's voters as they drop out, he'd still probably have 50%+1 which would probably be reflected in him beating Cruz in delegates over the course of a primary campaign.

We shall see. What really makes this so different is than previous years, is what normally drives people out of the race is a combination of running out of money and pressure from the party that you are harming the eventual nominee. The last standing of R / B / K won't face either of those pressures, as they will get the funding they need from traditional donors and the party won't pressure anyone to concede the field to Cruz and Trump.

I think Ohio and Florida really are the moments of truth. States are not so immune from national polling and even if popular in the state Kasich won't carry Ohio if he is at 8% nationally. I just don't think that R / B / K want the humiliation of losing their home state in a field of 4 or 5. Rubio can act like a success with a third place finish in Iowa, and Kasich can after New Hampshire as well even though he finished WAY behind Trump and just got 16% of the vote, but that doesn't work in your home state that is winner take all.

I see a few ways this can go awry. The stubbornness you reference could keep multiple candidates around. A prisoners dilemma could go awry: say Bush and Rubio are both at 20% in polling and Trump at 33% in Florida--neither wants to drop out and let the other have victory. Or all three could turn out to be non viable and drop out on their own.

But really, I doubt this will happen. Bush is just doing awful. He spent an almost impossible amount of money per voter in Iowa and New Hampshire, and finished in 6th and 4th respectively. I read after Iowa he pulled media buys from South Carolina to focus on New Hampshire. Probably he is trying to destroy Rubio because he thinks if he does that, Kasich doesn't have the money to compete in Florida, and he can win there. For whatever reason (it's his name) people just aren't responding to him at all.

[Martinus]

I think the bolded is pretty good advice.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/there-is-only-one-way-1362390891388982.html

If I were Clinton right now, I'd be asking some pretty simple questions every chance I got in South Carolina and Nevada and Michigan.

Who gets to claim the mantle of change — the nation's first black president, who overturned the old order on health care and Wall Street regulation and Cuba and Iran, or a senator who's voted with the gun industry? How seriously can you take a candidate who doesn't think Obama represents a real departure from the status quo?

A vote for Clinton, at this point, has to be a vote of validation for Obama's legacy, too.

It's not a perfect strategy. You might point out that Obama himself once derided Clinton, eons ago, as shifty and calculating. You might point out, as I have, that elections are supposed to be about the future and not the past.

But here's the reality: To this point, Clinton has run a campaign that's all about her bona fides, and nobody's swooning. If she's still defending her Wall Street speeches and whining about the vast right-wing conspiracy a few weeks from now, the nomination could very well slip away from her, again.

Clinton's best move now is to lash herself tightly to the man who once beat her and hope it's enough to ride out the wave.

Is it really, though? She herself ran against Obama, as Bernie pointed out during the last debate. This seems like an odd line of an attack on several levels - it doesn't hurt Bernie that much and it makes her look vulnerable.

[garbon]

I think the bolded is pretty good advice.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/there-is-only-one-way-1362390891388982.html

If I were Clinton right now, I'd be asking some pretty simple questions every chance I got in South Carolina and Nevada and Michigan.

Who gets to claim the mantle of change — the nation's first black president, who overturned the old order on health care and Wall Street regulation and Cuba and Iran, or a senator who's voted with the gun industry? How seriously can you take a candidate who doesn't think Obama represents a real departure from the status quo?

A vote for Clinton, at this point, has to be a vote of validation for Obama's legacy, too.

It's not a perfect strategy. You might point out that Obama himself once derided Clinton, eons ago, as shifty and calculating. You might point out, as I have, that elections are supposed to be about the future and not the past.

But here's the reality: To this point, Clinton has run a campaign that's all about her bona fides, and nobody's swooning. If she's still defending her Wall Street speeches and whining about the vast right-wing conspiracy a few weeks from now, the nomination could very well slip away from her, again.

Clinton's best move now is to lash herself tightly to the man who once beat her and hope it's enough to ride out the wave.

Is it really, though? She herself ran against Obama, as Bernie pointed out during the last debate. This seems like an odd line of an attack on several levels - it doesn't hurt Bernie that much and it makes her look vulnerable.

And then she didn't act like a sore loser but instead joined his team.

[Phillip V]

Sanders now seems to have a money advantage over Clinton.  He is spending $2.7 million in campaign ads this week compared to $1.2 million for Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/5-political-numbers-to-watch/2016/02/5-numbers-that-mattered-this-week-in-politics-219197

[OttoVonBismarck]

Naw, she's raised about $165m to Bernie's $75m, between her campaign and her PACs she has over $70m cash on hand vs $28m for Bernie (as of the last disclosure on 12/31.)

Bernie is raising money well, excluding PACs he was only down like $3m cash on hand at the end of 2015 but PACs are huge. Hillary may be spending less than Bernie this week but as the heir presumptive she doesn't face "must win/improve" contests. She could tie Nevada and win SC by 30 pts and it will show Bernie isn't able to convert black voters. SC is really do or die for Bernie because if that black voter support stubbornly stays unchanged from where it was before Iowa I think his campaign will start to wither. Conversely if he loses by say, 15, it shows he can at least battle for and take some of the black voters who so far have ignored him, and that means he could be competitive all the way to the last primary.

It'll be real bad for the Democrats if he wins, polling shows that voters at large (not Democratic primary likely voters) view a socialist as the worst of various possible descriptors--including worse than atheist (and the GOP will happily point out Bernie is one of those, too.) If Bernie sticks to his guns and doesn't establish a PAC in the general (like Obama did in 2012) he will have a much quieter megaphone. There is no mechanism for regular campaign contributions to outspend PACs. They'll run non stop ads about how a godless socialist liberal from Vermont wants to raise your taxes by 10% if you're middle class.

People forget I think that Bernie has been the focus of almost zero GOP attacks, when the GOP isn't attacking each other they're attacking Hillary. The effect that the concentrated GOP smear will have on Sanders among moderates and other non-lefty independents hasn't been baked into any polling yet and could be quite devastating.

Conversely even the worst GOP candidate electorally--Trump, has arguably already been dragged through the mud as much as one can, so while some national polling shows Trump down 4-7 against Sanders that's Trump with 100% of his possible negatives front and center and Bernie with essentially none of his.

Bernie also isn't a quarter the skilled campaigner that Obama was, and that will hurt in the general. Bernie is actually a terrible campaigner with some ideas that are deeply appealing to an energized segment of the electorate. Obama was a masterful campaigner who knew how to mimic an idealist to suck the MoveOn crowd into his ranks.

[Eddie Teach]

Obama was too left-wing to win too, except that he did. It's the New Economy. The rising tide lifting boats in China and the Philippines while those in middle America remain beached. America is probably more receptive to a message like Bernie's now than any time since the '30s.

[dps]

Hillary may be spending less than Bernie this week but as the heir presumptive she doesn't face "must win/improve" contests.

Beyond anything else you posted, as the presumptive nominee, Hillary has to keep money in reserve for the general election campaign, whereas Bernie, as the challenger, has to make a major move fairly soon.

[LaCroix]

Obama was too left-wing to win too, except that he did. It's the New Economy. The rising tide lifting boats in China and the Philippines while those in middle America remain beached. America is probably more receptive to a message like Bernie's now than any time since the '30s.

I don't remember obama being too leftist. I remember concerns that there was no substance behind hope, change, etc. sanders is more a product of the OWS mentality that never quite died, just went into hibernation.

one of the best things about the democrats was that their crazies never organized. the tea party was well organized and so were able to more directly influence things. while sanders won't win the nomination, it's kinda disturbing he's gotten this far.

[Razgovory]

Too left-wing is anyone not endorsed by talk radio or running anyone running as a Democrat.

[LaCroix]