Monday, September 16, 2013


Not that you care if you're a sane, rational person, but CNN has just released a new poll about the 2016 presidential race. Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite on the Democratic side, of course (shockingly, all those shouts of "Benghazi!" haven't dropped her below 65% among Democrats), while the Republican race is more of a muddle:
Seventeen percent of Republicans and Independents who lean toward the GOP say they are likely to support New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, with 16% backing Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is at 13%; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 10%; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida at 9%; Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at 7%, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a 2012 Republican presidential candidate who battled eventual nominee Mitt Romney deep into the primary season, at 5%.
Marco Rubio ... remember that guy? Seemed to be riding the zeitgeist during that brief period when Republicans appeared to be embarrassed by their 2012 electoral performance, especially among Hispanic voters? Say, whatever happened to that Rubio guy?

Well, yes, his moment is over:
Rubio's number stands out. The first-term senator, considered a rock star among many Republicans, registered in the upper teens in polls of the possible GOP 2016 horserace conducted by other organizations earlier this year.

But Rubio's support of immigration reform -- he was a high profile member of a bipartisan group of senators who pushed immigration reform passage through the Senate this spring -- may have hurt his standing with many conservative voters opposed to such efforts.
Now, I'm sure he was thinking that it shouldn't be all that difficult to overcome Republican resistance to immigration reform and win the party's presidential nomination -- after all, John McCain did it in 2008. And Ronald Reagan, the party's god among men, signed an "amnesty" bill as president.

But McCain won the nomination when the vast majority of Republicans' hate was directed elsewhere. McCain stood for unswerving support of the Iraq War. In 2008, Republican voters had their hate focused on "Moo-slimes" (as they like to call them) and on anyone in America deemed an enabler of Islamic extremism (i.e., all critics of the Iraq War). So McCain could slide by. And prior to that, Reagan was the great scourge of the commies. So he got (and continues to get) a pass on immigration.

But we're in a moment when Republicans can't be enthusiastic about war, because any war-fighting is being done by the hated Kenyan Muslim socialist in the White House. So the hate turns to immigrants (a category many Republicans -- most? -- believe includes the president).

Sorry, Marco. Maybe you could run for president as a supporter of immigration reform in the future, when we're fighting a great patriotic (read: Republican) war against a Hitler-level evildoer (defined as any foe opposed by a Republican president), but we're not in such a moment now. Maybe you could run after President Christie or Cruz spends two terms screwing up in Iran?


And a quick note on the CNN poll of the Democrats. Yes, Hillary Clinton gets 65% of the vote, but there's a fairly big gender gap:
In the potential Democratic battle, the survey indicates Clinton performing better with women (76%) than men (52%).
Men are somewhat resistant to a woman? Well, if you look at the crosstabs, you see that one candidate who does better among men than women is Elizabeth Warren (10% among Democratic men, 4% among women). So maybe more Democratic men than women (at least for now) are angry enough to want a progressive rebuke to this teabagger/banker era.

And there's this:
Biden scores higher with voters age 50 and older (18%) than those younger than 50 (5%).
Well, of course. Younger voters are rejecting the Biden they know best -- the Onion Biden. If he's serious about a 2016 run, that's the biggest hurdle he has to overcome. Seriously.


Victor said...

Poor Marco.

I'd suggest changing your last name to Reagan, but you still look a tad too Hispanic for the crowd you chose to hand out with.

And I don't care if we have the Democrat I'd like to see least, be the President - Andrew Cuomo.

Electing some lunatic Republican in the foreseeable future, will mean the death of representative democracy in this country.

They are nothing but Authoritarian Fascists with a feigned love of Jesus, the figurehead, not Jesus the man or his message.

Kathy said...

I'm impressed and surprised that Christie is still doing so well. Perhaps most of his support comes from the Independent Leaning Republican portion of those surveyed. Steve, your thoughts?

Steve M. said...

That does surprise me. I saw another poll a while back that said he was popular in the East, which would mean he's popular in a place where right-wing purism isn't as important. Still, it's surprising,

Monty said...

Speaking of der haten...

Warren Terra said...

One explanation for the Clinton / Warren discrepancy might be that a fair number of men are less open to Clinton in particular than to women in general (perhaps in response to the ridiculous Hillary caricatures so zealously promoted in the 90s?).

A different argument might be that a fair number of men wish to demonstrate that their aversion to Clinton is not gender-based, even though it is, and so vocally endorse a different woman, one who's highly admirable and will never win. Think of this scenario as similar to the way anti-Black racists will in their defense lavish praise on some irrelevant Black luminary.

Steve M. said...

Re Christie, there's this:

Although Christie may be leading the pack overall at the moment, the survey found that he is not the first choice among conservatives; only 8 percent of Republican respondents who identified themselves as conservatives said they would likely vote for Christie, compared to 28 percent of those who described themselves as moderates.