Clinton lost them to two different opponents, though. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone has won both Iowa and New Hampshire but failed to win the nomination, for either party, since the current primary era.
There wasnt a contended primary in Iowa in 1992. Due to the home state senator running. Everyone else conceded it.
I would LOVE Trump to win the nomination. I would be beyond overjoyed. I am just completely unswayed about how politics has been for the past 40 years completely changing suddenly. He needs to actually win one of these states to convince me of such a unprecedented change.
Then hey, who knows, maybe Trump'll flame out too.
But this is a dramatically different electorate and circumstance than 2008, and I don't think that past results are a good predictor of future performance right now. Trump's had any number of "okay, NOW he's done for sure, right" moments. None of them did him in. I doubt anything is going to crop up in the next month and change that'll do the trick.
I doubt that losing Iowa and NH would do him in in and of themselves. He's got a pretty impressive ground game, I think he'd keep in it and rely on that.
2008 was also before the GOP base had completely soured on the party leadership. There really seems to have been a fundamental change in their electorate that happened after Obama won election. And then, when their newly-minted majorities failed to adequately fight Obama, their sense of betrayal, disillusionment, etc only skyrocketed.
This was reflected well in one of Trump's earliest major appearances, when he basically made the argument (paraphrasing here): "are you going to trust this party's leaders again? After they betrayed your hard work in 2010 and 2014? After they blew a winnable race in 2012? Screw that - and screw them!"
2008's GOP electorate mood is remarkably different from 2016's, so comparisons can only go so far.
I know one thing: if I were Obama, watching all of this transpire? I'd want to keep on goosing their voters. Keep them angry. Flaunt that I'm President. Keep getting away with various "unAmerican" things. In 2008, it was HOPE that fueled Obama
Rudy made some (big) mistakes, but I also don't think Republicans would nominate a guy who still supported abortion, and had the same views on gay rights as Barack Obama at the time.
2008 was also before the GOP base had completely soured on the party leadership. There really seems to have been a fundamental change in their electorate that happened after Obama won election. And then, when their newly-minted majorities failed to adequately fight Obama, their sense of betrayal, disillusionment, etc only skyrocketed.
This was reflected well in one of Trump's earliest major appearances, when he basically made the argument (paraphrasing here): "are you going to trust this party's leaders again? After they betrayed your hard work in 2010 and 2014? After they blew a winnable race in 2012? Screw that - and screw them!"
2008's GOP electorate mood is remarkably different from 2016's, so comparisons can only go so far.
I know one thing: if I were Obama, watching all of this transpire? I'd want to keep on goosing their voters. Keep them angry. Flaunt that I'm President. Keep getting away with various "unAmerican" things. In 2008, it was HOPE that fueled Obama
Rudy made some mistakes, but I also don't think Republicans would nominate a guy who still supported abortion, and had the same views on gay rights as Barack Obama at the time.
I was thinking '76 as the start of the modern primary era; races prior to '76 were not really decided by the party membership and '76 featured a comprehensive redesign of the Democratic primary system that has remained relatively intact until today.
'76: Carter won Iowa, NH, won the nomination.
'80: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'84: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'88: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'92: Split between candidates; Iowa never contested.
'96: -
'00: Gore won Iowa, NH, won the nomination.
'04: Kerry won Iowa, NH, won the nomination.
'08: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'12: -
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that nobody has ever won the nomination without winning at least one of Iowa or NH when both were contested.
I know one thing: if I were Obama, watching all of this transpire? I'd want to keep on goosing their voters. Keep them angry. Flaunt that I'm President. Keep getting away with various "unAmerican" things. In 2008, it was HOPE that fueled Obama
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that nobody has ever won the nomination without winning at least one of Iowa or NH when both were contested.
The problem with NH is that literally all of the establishment candidates are putting their hopes on that primary. The vote is split between at least four to five legit insider goons. That leaves it wide open for Trump.
Sanders is within about 7.5 percentage points in Iowa with two months to go? That's not a collapse. Besides, the caucus system doesn't match the popular vote anyway, it tends to reward enthusiasm.
this has been coming for a while. Trump and carson had high crossover due to the whole "outsider" and "not a politician" thing.
If either one ends up tanking (and it looks like it was carson) the other one would have become unstoppable. Looks like it's happening early due to Carson looking like shit on foreign policy in the wake of a terror attack.
Does PPP have a history of withholding partner polls if requested? Pigeon was talking about withholding polls to a larger audience via their TV station vs their website.
Partner polls are always released with the approval of the partner only. Thats what it means to partner, you pay for the poll to be carried out and so you own the results and can do what you want with them.
The problem with NH is that literally all of the establishment candidates are putting their hopes on that primary. The vote is split between at least four to five legit insider goons. That leaves it wide open for Trump.
When Trump first entered the race I thought he'd have a great shot at winning NH and bombing elsewhere. He's a PERFECT fit for the state - a Buchananesque nativist that's dominated the New England media markets for years.
Rubio on the other hand doesn't fit the mold of previous NH winners. He's not a neighboring governor like Romney, he's not considered a maverick with crossover independent appeal like McCain, and he doesn't attract North Eastern white working class moderates like Buchanan or Trump. He's in the worst case scenario of being too moderate for Iowa and too conservative for NH (while Trump has managed to successfully position himself as the opposite).
One big thing that could sway the NH primary is Clinton's performance in Iowa. If she blows Bernie away there, most independents will consider the Democratic race a done deal and vote in the wide open Republican primary. I imagine that would probably help Trump more than anyone.
Not sure why anyone would stress that Fox poll. They're the only poll in the last 4 months to show a Trump lead, making it a clear outlier. Even Quinn with their +8 R electorate couldn't squeeze out a Trump lead. See for yourself.
I have it on good authority that the FBI has discovered the "whitey" tape in Hillary's emails and that it was actually Hillary herself depicted in the tape. Ambassador Stevens stumbled across a copy of this recording and was about ready to deliver it to Breibart when Hillary ordered the "terrorist attack" on the compound in Benghazi. You can expect this to be on the front page by Christmas. Pretty much ending her campaign.
Not sure why anyone would stress that Fox poll. They're the only poll in the last 4 months to show a Trump lead, making it a clear outlier. See for yourself.
If that NH Republican poll were true, Trump would get 17 delegates, Rubio would get 5, Carson would get 5, and 3 would be discretionary (presumably to Rubio).
Here's the particulars:
Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research (R) Interviews Conducted: N = 1,016 registered voters (506 landline, 510 cellphone) November 16-19, 2015
The poll had a very big lead for Clinton in the past and has shrunk and reversed over time.
Democrat Hillary Clinton Republican Donald Trump (Other) (Wouldnt vote) (Dont know)
16-19 Nov 15 41% 46 2 7 5
PAST TREND
10-12 Oct 15* 40% 45 4 7 3
20-22 Sep 15 46% 42 3 7 2
11-13 Aug 15 47% 42 2 7 3
21-23 Jun 15* 51% 34 3 9 3
Partner polls are always released with the approval of the partner only. Thats what it means to partner, you pay for the poll to be carried out and so you own the results and can do what you want with them.
So you're surprised that your less smoothing filter would show a Trump lead because the most recent outlier shows Trump +5? Did you look at the previous 12 polls or are you intentionally playing dumb?
So you're surprised that your less smoothing filter would show a Trump lead because the most recent outlier shows Trump +5? Did you look at the previous 12 polls or are you intentionally playing dumb?
If you look at polls with samples conducted over the last two weeks, Trump is on average +0.75 over Clinton.
EDIT: And if you overlap the margins of error, you can say with 90% confidence in Trump vs. Clinton that Trump is somewhere between 43.0% and 45.0%, while Clinton is performing between 42.3% and 44.0%. Obviously that assumes a sound methodology on behalf of all the pollsters involved.
Okay, which is why I have the edit above. Unless the outlier is one of the 5% which are outside the margin of error given for the 95% confidence level, then we know that Trump must be within the highest margin of error bound for the lower poll and the lower margin of error bound for the highest poll. Same for Clinton. These results are very close. We can conclude with 90% confidence, assuming no grave methodological flaws, that Clinton is at best +1 over Trump, and is at worst -2.7 behind.
I mean, ultimately this is pointless because we have almost a year of campaigning to go, which will completely change the state of the race, making predictions now rather inaccurate. However, based on the best predictions we can make (which aren't very good), one would have to conclude Trump would give Clinton a run for her money.
In an interview today with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Sen. Marco Rubio said that the Supreme Court’s rulings on marriage equality and abortion rights in the Obergefell and Roe decisions, respectively, are “not settled law.”
The Republican presidential candidate said that states should “do everything possible within the constraints that its placed upon us” to curtail abortion rights, before insisting that government officials “ignore” Supreme Court rulings if they believe they conflict with “God’s rules.”
“We are clearly called, in the Bible, to adhere to our civil authorities, but that conflicts with also a requirement to adhere to God’s rules,” he said. “When those two come in conflict, God’s rules always win. In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin, violate God’s law and sin, if we’re ordered to stop preaching the gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that. We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”
I don't care about these polls at all, but I agree with Crab. I don't think the Fox poll meets the qualifications of an outlier, anyway. Excluding polls because they deviate from others is a bad idea.
They probably need to get Jeb and Kasich out of the race so Rubio can win New Hampshire, but I don't know what kind of pressure would do that. They can't primary Kasich. Jeb has nothing going on worth threatening.
They probably need to get Jeb and Kasich out of the race so Rubio can win New Hampshire, but I don't know what kind of pressure would do that. They can't primary Kasich. Jeb has nothing going on worth threatening.
Really, New Hampshire and Iowa should have swapped places for the Republicans this year, or at least swapped structures so that Iowa is still ahead. New Hampshire will kill the campaigns of anyone who does not get 10% in New Hampshire immediately, whereas people can write off Iowa more easily. Having Iowa first means more people alive going into New Hampshire means more people not making the bar at New Hampshire means more Trump.
Really, New Hampshire and Iowa should have swapped places for the Republicans this year, or at least swapped structures so that Iowa is still ahead. New Hampshire will kill the campaigns of anyone who does not get 10% in New Hampshire immediately, whereas people can write off Iowa more easily. Having Iowa first means more people alive going into New Hampshire means more people not making the bar at New Hampshire means more Trump.
Jeb Bush/other establishment candidates would have to drop out soon, otherwise they would cannibalize each other and Rubio in the primary. If they drop out the support and such will go to Rubio. At the same time Rubio would be an easy target for everyone else though.
He didn't exactly say that, but what he actually said was nonetheless profoundly stupid, no matter how favorable or unfavorable you look at it. He said that he would take an 'imbecile' like Carson over Noam Chomsky, because Carson at least acknowledges that "Jihadis are the enemy". He has made a point multiple times in the past that is a tragedy that liberals leave the discussion of jihadism to right-wing lunatics. So the most favorable interpretation here would be that he said it in that sentiment. Nonetheless, it's a profoundly stupid thing to say, and it's obviously fueled by a frustration over Chomsky.
Similarly, his comment about Cruz's preference for Christians was—while based on factual claims—naive and missing the larger picture. While it is true that Muslim immigration/refugees come with a risk of importing some Islamists/Jihadists in the process, the opportunities here for spreading liberal values seem much higher to me than this risks. Especially since, as far as I know, Syrian Muslims tend to be more on the liberal spectrum, and thus are—to use Harris' own words—"the most important people in the world to support" and people that should get "immediate US citizenship, if they want to".
But even if we would have to deal with refugees from conservative Muslim majority countries, there is still more opportunity than risk. The best way to deal with the subset of conservative Muslim refugees that are Islamists/Jihadists is to instill them with doubt, and the best way to do that is to confront them and integrate them into a Western society. Not under a paradigm of uncritical multiculturalism, but under a policy that seeks to convey Western liberal values through mandatory education and fair integration.