Saturday, December 23, 2017

Kiss Of Death Politics


Part of Señor Trumpanzee's absurd-- but effective-- pitch during his election campaign was about how he would be a champion for "the forgotten men and women of America." Instead he's been a champion for corporate executives, the Wall Street banksters and the wealthiest and greediest among us. And, slowly but surely, the forgotten men and women of America have begun to catch on. Among Trump's base, his one legislative accomplishment, the Tax Scam, isn't polling all that well. Only 28% of rural Americans back it and only 29% of non-college whites like it. Even among actual Trump votes, just 57% are taken in by the scam. 63% of voters say the Tax Scam was designed mostly to benefit corporations and the wealthy, compared with 22% who say it was designed to help all Americans equally.

More voters now say they trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the economy. Worse yet for Republicans is the new SSRS poll for CNN showing that the advantage Democrats have over Republicans in a hypothetical Congressional matchup is continuing to grow, an indication that the building 2018 midterm wave is becoming tsunami.
Among registered voters, 56% say they favor a Democrat in their congressional district, while 38% prefer a Republican. That 18-point edge is the widest Democrats have held in CNN polling on the 2018 contests, and the largest at this point in midterm election cycles dating back two decades. The finding follows several other public polls showing large double-digit leads for Democrats on similar questions.
Only Beltway goofballs like Cook are cautiously predicting Democrats will net the 24 votes needed for a House takeover. Less conservative prognosticators more in touch with electoral reality see the GOP being absolutely crushed next year, with the House Democrats winning not 2 dozen red seats but 4 or 5 dozen! Independents are largely through with the GOP, bad news for every Republican outside of the Old Confederacy. Nationally, independent voters now favor Democrats over Republicans "by a 16-point margin, 51% to 35%, similar to the 50% to 36% margin by which they favored Democrats in fall of 2005, ahead of Democrats' 2006 recapturing of the House and Senate. The Democrats hold a larger lead overall now because Republicans make up a smaller share of the electorate than they did in 2005. And those Republicans who are still in the electorate are less enthusiastic about voting next year than Democrats."

On Thursday, Politico referred to Trumpanzee, Ryan and McConnell "as anchors on Republicans’ poll numbers." Their own poll, by Morning Consult, shows the generic congressional ballot advantage for Democrats 44-34%. and with Trump's already dismal favorability ratings continuing to crater. "Democrats’ 10-point lead on the generic ballot," they note, "is their largest for the year. The party has a 15-point lead among female voters, the poll shows, and a 3-point edge among male voters. White voters are split-- 39 percent for Democrats and 38 percent for Republicans-- but Democrats have a 59-point lead among African-American voters and a 27-point lead among Hispanics."

The double digit leads all polls have begun showing, including by Republican firms, is enough to overcome gerrymandering in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and perhaps even Ohio. Polls are also predicting high turnouts instead of the low turnouts normal for midterm elections.

Laura Oatman is the progressive candidate running for the Orange County coastal seat occupied by Putin asset Dana Rohrabacher. Yesterday she told us that "This is the pattern; Trump, full of promises and gaudy baubles promising the world, be it a hotel, a golf course, or a wall. And like so many others before them, the businessmen, the bankers-- Americans have learned that Trump cannot be trusted.  That their hope for something different-- which is understandable-- was misplaced.  Regardless, I won’t need Trump’s kisses to Dana, nor Putin’s bot factories behind Dana’s pages, to energize the voters of CA-48 and bring positive change to this district."

Sam Jammal, the progressive candidate running for the northeast Orange County seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Ed Royce is already clobbering Royce with his willingness to put Trump's whims ahead of his own constituents' needs. "Voters in our community," he reminded us, "resoundingly rejected Donald Trump last year and polls show they reject him today in even larger margins. It amazes me that Ed Royce is willing to fight for Trump's priorities instead of his own constituents. There won't be a day where we don't tie Ed to the Trump agenda. He is a 97% vote for Trump in a district that went for Hillary by nearly 9%. Our community won't stand for this, especially now that Trump took away net neutrality and Royce voted for a tax reform bill that undermines homeowners, seniors and young people in our district just so his donors could get a tax cut."

And this is a position of Democratic congressional candidates not just in blue California, but even in red Texas. Rick Treviño is the progressive candidate taking on Will Hurd in South Texas. "For months now," he said, "Will Hurd has been doing his best to distance himself from Trump. I'm sorry buddy, that stink don't come off. I can smell that vote from here. The GOP and Hurd enabled Trump and they must atone for the damage they've unleashed on our society." Jason Westin is running in a west Houston seat that's ready to flip. "Here in the Texas 7th district," he told us, "Donald Trump was the first Republican to lose in decades, so we'd love to invite him to campaign with John Culberson. Our district voted for Mitt Romney by more than 20% over President Obama, but things changed with Mr. Trump and his circus tricks. Our district is highly educated and the 'distract and divide' strategy Mr. Trump used fell flat, and that was before we saw his performance as President. The PPP polling done recently showed in TX-07 that Mr. Trump had a 37% approval rating, but amazingly John Culberson was only at 31%. I'm not sure how anyone could be less popular than Mr. Trump, but John Culberson has found a way. John Culberson has the second highest 'Trump Score' rating in the House per FiveThirtyEight, so he's clearly trying to get Mr. Trump's support. That sounds wonderful to us."

We've been talking for months about the Trump "kiss of death." Analysis of polls is now confirming this. "Trump is the most polarizing national politician. Just under a third of voters, 32 percent, say an endorsement from Trump would make them more likely to support a congressional candidate. But more voters, 38 percent, say a Trump endorsement would make them less likely to vote for that candidate. There’s also an enthusiasm gap: The percentage of voters who say a Trump endorsement would make them much less likely to vote for that candidate, 32 percent, is equal to the combined percentage who say Trump’s endorsement would make them much or somewhat more likely to support that person." Democratic candidates are mocking Trump on Twitter and Facebook, begging him to come to their districts to campaign for the Republican incumbents who are viewed as Trump and Ryan rubber-stamps.
The two least popular figures, according to the poll, loom large on the Senate battlefield: former White House adviser Stephen Bannon and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Only 17 percent of voters say a Bannon endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, while 39 percent say his backing would make them less likely to support the candidate.

McConnell’s numbers aren’t much better: Just 18 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate he endorsed, while twice as many, 36 percent, would be less likely.

The Bannon-vs.-McConnell proxy battles are most likely to play out in GOP Senate primaries, but the Politico/Morning Consult poll is inconclusive on which man is more valuable nationally to a Republican audience. Three in 10 GOP voters say a McConnell endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, but 23 percent say it would make them less likely. The numbers are similar for Bannon, the controversial Breitbart executive: 29 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him, while 25 percent would be less likely.

Endorsements from most major political figures could hurt candidates more that they help them.

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to turn House Speaker Paul Ryan into a bogeyman for GOP congressional candidates. Ryan (R-Wis.) is a stronger surrogate than McConnell, but the percentage of voters who say his support would make them less likely to vote for a candidate (36 percent) is still greater than those it would make more likely (25 percent).

Labels: , , , , , ,


At 6:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Using polling to support the premise is self repudiating.

Your polling continues to show just how fucking stupid and evil most americans truly are. It simply shows that, among the right, we'll never ever get a candidate as good as even the bushbaby again. The voters are too Nazified and no candidate will change that.

Doing national polls on local pols, senators and reps, is kind of pointless. Mcturtle polling only matters in KY. Ryan polling only matters in WI-01. Bannon polling only shows how desperate the left is to find boogeymen. If Bannon ever runs for something, then it might matter.

But we also see, almost every cycle, that the generic polling is not indicative of likely outcomes. The DxCC almost always finds candidates that are far worse than the public's image of a generic democrap. And the Rs nearly always puke up a candidate that is far worse than the public's image of a generic R. Yet they each get the votes of their dedicated demo. The left cannot bring themselves to vote against someone as corrupt as Pelosi and scummer. And the right can never allow themselves to support someone BETTER than their worst.

The worse the Rs get, the further right, more corrupt the Ds become. The closer the Ds get to the Rs, the further right the Rs must go to maintain an acceptably distinguishing distance for their much dumber and eviler voters.

The system is resonant. And only voters can change that since voters keep supplying the resonant energy input by always voting for worse instead of insisting on better.

Lesser evilism. A varying speed descent into hell. And I've seen every step of it since 1980.

At 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's add that the DINO-Whigs get paid to throw elections.

It's evident from the amount of actual news coverage that the corporate sector really wants this bill to succeed (for them). Corporations are giving rather small bonuses to their employees and claiming it's connected to the new tax "reform". Getting a few bucks extra in their pockets is going to be the first memory that they have, and that is ALL they are going to remember. Then, just like a hypnotist's subject, when the GOP brags about how successful their tax bill has been and votes are needed to prevent the DINO-Whigs from reversing things, all that rosy talk about taking the House in 2018 and the White House in 2020 will fade out faster than steam in an ice storm.

This observation of mine is based on when Reagan slashed taxes. Sure he ended up having to raise some of them again, but all that too many people heard when he spoke was "He gave me more money" even if their taxes ended up rising. And they still bragged about having voted for him while blasting the DINO-Whigs for working against The Gipper.

This was the reason that the DINO-Whigs had such a terrible time winning elections since 1980. This is why both Bill Clinton and Obamanation campaigned as moderate Republicans (and to which Obamanation finally admitted to Univision in December of 2012). This is why the DINO-Whigs are only fooling themselves by bragging almost incessantly today, counting their chicken-dream seats while the GOP continues their campaign to destroy the New Deal (not that there's much left of it) and convert our nation into the first corporatist serfdom.

Just wait for these new royalty to demand their rights of jus primae noctis with your daughters! It would change the meaning of #MeToo!


Post a Comment

<< Home