New Bloomberg/Des Moines Register Poll: Walker Leads crowded GOP Field

A new poll conducted by Bloomberg News and the Des Moines Register shows just how wide the GOP field of candidates for 2016 really is...

A few stats to keep in mind when reading the results of this poll:

• 402 Iowans participated in the GOP side of this poll.
• Those polled are "likely caucus-goers", meaning they are folks likely to participate in the Iowa Caucus this time next year. 
• Poll was conducted between 26-29 January.

The big "winner" of the GOP side of the poll is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, being the first choice of 15% of those polled. Given his recent performance at the "Freedom Summit" held by Iowa Congressman Steve King earlier this week, this results points to Walker getting his message across to those who walked the summit or followed it in conservative media.

Other solid "honorable mentions" include Senator Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee (who remains quite popular in Iowa even today, 7 years after his caucus win in the 2008).

Also of interest is that Mitt Romney, who quite publicly withdrew from the GOP field yesterday, was the first choice of 13% of those polled. Not bad for a candidate who lost in the Iowa caucus the last two election cycles (though only by a hair this last time around). With his exit, that puts a lot of points up for grabs.

Me being something of a numbers-guys (my day job), I wanted to see the actual poll results for myself to see if there any other interesting tidbits that didn't make it in Bloomberg's article, and sure enough I did.

Here are a few of these "tidbits":

• Among the likely Democratic caucus-goers, when asked if the GOP did win the White House in 2016, which of their candidates would be the best leaders, Chris Christie (20%), Jeb Bush (19%) and Mitt Romney (15%) came out on top.
• Mike Huckabee has the highest overall favorable-rating of the GOP field at 66%, with Rand Paul (64%), Rick Perry (64%), and Scott Walker (60%)  right behind him.
• However, Scott Walker has the highest "Very Favorable" rating by those polled at 32%.
• Of the much-talked candidates in the media, Jeb Bush and Christie are definitely struggling, with favorable-rating below 50% (46% and 36% respectively).
• On a personally satisfying note, waste-of-oxygen Donald Trump received an overall favorable-rating of just 26% (good to see I'm in good company with my fellow Iowans).
• When you take Mitt Romney out of the race, the poll does not show any one candidate getting a large boost in overall support. 

We are roughly one year away from the Iowa Caucuses and as political "veterans" and Iowans well know, what the GOP field looks like today could change is the blink of an eye.

For the moment though, Governor Scott Walker is probably feeling pretty good about his efforts for far...

What's Wrong with Congress Today: Congressman Pleads Guilty to Tax Faud, Refuses to Resign House Seat

First, I want to say kudos to RealClearPolitics' Caitlin Huey-Burns for the informative article that inspired this post...

We are often berated with polls showing just how unpopular Congress is to the vast majority of Americans, but then again, few President's have much luck getting a majority of Americans to give them a proverbial 'thumbs up' for how their doing at their jobs either. So why the fuss?

The sheer scale of the public's disapproval of Congress is what should really catches folks' attention.

In a report released by the good number-crunchers at Gallup last week, 2014 was found to be the second to worst year for congressional approval since 1974. Just for those keeping score back home, only 2013 was a worse year for Congress. On average, Congress' approval rating for 2014 was just 15% (based on roughly a dozen polls taken since January 2014).

Now, before we get into WHY these numbers are so low, let's address one possible complaint out there about such polls. A lot of folks reading this are probably thinking, "so what, Congress has always been horribly unpopular".

Not true as it turns (something that surprised even me!)..

Also per the good folks at Gallup, while Congress has only rarely has the approval of a majority of Americans (occurring during the years immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks), they regularly had yearly average approval in the 35-50% range during the mid to latter-half of the 1990s.

There were also a few years where their ratings were as terrible as the last few years (1979 and 1992 specifically), they have never before been so consistently low year after year as they have been recently.

But here's what the scary truth is: Many in Congress couldn't care less.

How do I know that? Because of stories like that inspired this post today on RealClearPolitics.

Rep. Grimm of New York (R) has recently pleaded GUILTY to a felony tax fraud charge and also issued a "statement of facts" that acknowledges guilt in several other related charges (ranging from lying under oath to hiring undocumented immigrants), carrying a possible prison sentence of up to 36 months.

BUT he doesn't feel at this time that he could resign he newly re-elected House seat anytime soon.

That's right folks, this guy was just re-elected (rather comfortably I might add) to another 2-year term in Congress. What's worse is that these charges were known during much of the campaign and were (not surprisingly) used by his Democratic opponent in attack ads, but were not enough to scare off his constituents from voting..

Even with all these potentially damning legal charges against him during an election year, this former FBI agent won re-election by a 13 point margin.

So, wins re-election with 20 criminal charges filed against him, pleads guilty to one felony charge and de facto admits to the other 19 charges just 6 weeks after the election (convenient as hell), but thinks he is perfectly able and obligated to continue serving in Congress for the next 2 years.

THAT...is your tax dollars at work folks.

Dirtbags like Rep. Grimm are I fear, not the exception BUT the rule. Just as we saw in Texas' now infamous District Attorney-DUI showdown, regardless of party affiliation, many politicians in America today seem to be think they are ENTITLED to that cushy seat the voters have put them (whether directly or indirectly), illegal activities be damned.

What's potentially even worse is that such a large majority of congressional district voters seemed perfectly OK with looking past their charges during his campaign. Was it a "better the devil you know" situation or just blame complacency on the voters in his district?

Either way, just goes to show that some politicians will try to get away with just about anything to win your vote and sadly, far too many of us are just along with it, which makes US part of what's wrong with Congress today..

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

"Highlights" from the CIA Torture Report..

Changing gears a bit from the usual political back and forth and how "protesters" across America are effectively ignoring AND destroying the legacy left by great men like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr...

Today's top story is unarguably the "torture report" released by the U.S. Senate concerning the tactics used by the CIA in the years after the 9/11 terror attacks.

The report is a bit lengthy and thankfully, several good folks online have already skimmed through it and pulled out some rather disgusting and disturbing "highlights" for us to try and wrap our heads around (via Dylan Matthews of Vox).

My feelings concerning "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a bit complicated but I'll leave with this simple "truth": EIT is, by the reasoning of any SANE human being, torque. Period.

The debate over whether EIT is torture or not is, and has always been, a false narrative meant to distract folks from the reality: We tortured suspected terrorists to get information that we felt would be vital to the national security of this nation.

Thus, the REAL debate should be this: Should our national security be driven by the idea of "the ends justify the means" or should it be driven by the concept of doing everything within our power to protect this country WITHOUT stooping to the moral level of our enemies?

That, is the question we as Americans have to answer...

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

President Obama's Executive Action: If only a good speech made it right..

After watching President Obama's speech tonight on his planned executive actions concerning potentially millions of illegal immigrants in American today, I have to admit, it was a good speech. In fact, it's probably the most honest and heartfelt speech he has given in YEARS...

But that's doesn't make what he said good policy, or any less constitutionally questionable.

As those on the left have preached for a week or so now, the idea of presidents issuing executive orders to extend some form of "amnesty" or protection to illegal immigrants is NOT new.

But as we covered in an earlier piece, the CONTEXT of those earlier executives is important to remember. When presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. issued their executive orders, they did so in direct connection to a very recently passed federal law.

What President Obama has proposed tonight is to do something a bit, "grander". Instead of acting in concert with an existing/recently passed federal immigration law, he is moving to modify the ENTIRE immigration enforcement system.

Does a President truly have the constitutional authority to do such a thing?

Pres. Obama's Proposed Executive Order on Immigration: Truly "Unprecedented"?

Tonight's piece was inspired by several "spirited" Twitter conversations I have had over the last two days concerning President Obama's proposed/rumored executive order extending so-called "amnesty" to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Specifically, the conservation started when @Clydetheslyde posted an image comparing the GOP's reaction to this proposed/rumored executive order as President Reagan's sentiment towards what the GOP so lovingly calls "amnesty" today.

Now, I've actually never been a big fan of "gotcha" images like this (though I do admit they are quite effective in motivating me into a debate), and I posted in counter that Reagan's "amnesty" was first passed by Congress and then signed by him into law, not solely by 'executive fiat'.

This wandered initially into a comparison of Obama's proposed/rumored executive action and other famous EOs like Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (which I challenged on several vital points) and then to the topic of how constitutional ANY executive really is. As per the usual with debates I have with @Clydetheslyde, it was a little heated but ultimately a good and respectful debate.

To add further fuel to this fire today, @Mobygrapefan pointed out to me today that actually, there was more to Reagan's venture into "amnesty" than I was originally aware of (per the Huffington Post).

"GruberGate" and the 'Stupidity of the American Voter'

There has been a fair amount of talk on the internet the last week or so concerning the so-called "GruberGate" (I hate that EVERYBODY gets a "gate" these days, should be preserved for proper scandals..).

Interestingly though, the biggest element of this "scandal" is how LITTLE more traditional or "mainstream media" have covered it, if at all in fact, which gives the conservative media something to complain about..A never-ending cycle of American media and politics, gotta love it.

Anyway, back to the "scandal". Here is the short version:

Jonathan Gruber is a professor of economics at MIT and was, by his admission, one of the chief architects of Massachusetts's 2006 healthcare reform program (aka "RomneyCare") and the 2006 Affordable Healthcare Act (aka "ObamaCare"). In other words, probably not the most well liked guy in conservative circles.

While at a conference in 2013, Mr. Gruber made the following comment concerning the 2009 healthcare law:

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, that was really critical to getting the thing passed."

Pretty damning quote right? Hard to argue with that..but you all know me better than that.

Further Proof that American Politics are getting Ugly..REAL Ugly

If you were watching Fox News on election night last week, you probably saw an exchange occur repeated between commentator Juan Williams and several of the news' panel's more, "conservative" members (seems oxymoronic to have to say so considering this is Fox we're talking about, but bear with me).

The argument that Juan Williams was trying to make early on in the evening was that the results of the election thus far were largely due to an "anti-incumbent" sentiment and since the Democrats had more Senate seats up for grabs, they were bound to lose to some degree because of its sentiment.

Problem was, as the other members of the panel pointed out, even GOP incumbents (including those not really popular in their respective states such as Mitch McConnell) were not only winning but winning with fair margins.

So while Juan Williams may have been wrong in trying to apply this "anti-incumbent" sentiment to the Democrat's eventual defeat, that fact that Senate candidates who are normally not popular with their constituents were fairly easily winning re-election is something to make note of.

The basic logic of elections is this: if the politician is unpopular before the election cycle starts, he/she will probably not have an easy time winning re-election.

But as Senator Mitch McConnell can testify, that is not always the case, not by a long shot.

Further, even in some open Senate races, such as Iowa's seat vied for by Democrat Bruce Braley and GOPer Joni Ernst, neither candidate had a reliably strong lead (let alone pulling more than 50% in a majority of polls) going into election night. Regardless of this, Joni Ernst beat her Democratic opponent by roughly 10 points and won just over 52% of the vote.

This "phenomenon" was explored today by Politico's Maggie Haberman here.

More or less, the political reality of elections works out like this: As long as your polling numbers are better than your opponents, you can win a majority of the voters' support.

What does this really mean?

Well, a nasty by-product of this reality is you can wage a nasty, cutthroat, and downright hateful campaign against your opponent, and as long as enough voters buy what you're selling and like your opponent just a little less than you, you can win. Hence the rise in such election campaign strategies (often times carried out by "unofficially affiliated" Super PACs).

And you wonder why so few politicians these days wage so-called "clean campaigns", which seek to minimize personal attacks on your opponent and aim more to educate voters on your own political stances...

Welcome to the current political reality in America folks, for better or..or just for worse.

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

Political Spectrum: It's more than "Left & Right."

Another thought-provoking and non-midterm related piece tonight, this time posted on the official website of the political party that originally inspired me to start this blog years ago, the Modern Whig Party.



Of course, any views expressed by the author "joebrown", may not necessarily reflect the views of the Modern Whig Party itself.



Political Spectrum: It's more than "Left & Right."

A Federalist, a Libertarian, & a Statist Walk into a Bar..- Adam Gurri

In a refreshing break from the "All Midterms, All the the time!" stories posted as of late, here is a very thought-provoking piece by Adam Gurri, which was reposted on The Federalist (don't worry, they did so perfectly legally). 

In this piece, Gurri simplifies the spectrum of American political views into just three categories: Federalism, Property, and Liberation.

Read more here!

Stupid Story of the Week: Rick Perry Indicted by Public Integrity Officials for Demanding DA actually SHOW Integrity..

Breaking News!

Texas Governor Rick Perry is indicted for first threatening and then carrying out a threat to veto funds to a District Attorney's office (including their Public Integrity Unit) after the District Attorney is convicted of drunk driving. Here is the "full story" from FoxNews:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been indicted for abuse of power after carrying out a threat to veto funding for state public corruption prosecutors.

The Republican governor is accused of abusing his official powers by publicly promising to veto $7.5 million for the state public integrity unit at the Travis County District Attorney's office. He was indicted by an Austin grand jury Friday.

Perry said he'd veto the funding if the district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg, didn't resign. Lehmberg had recently been convicted of drunken driving. The state's Public Integrity Unit operates out of her office.

When Lehmberg refused, Perry carried out his veto, drawing an ethics complaint.

Perry is the first Texas governor indicted in nearly a century. He's leaving office in January, but he's a possible 2016 presidential run.

Now, let that sink in for a moment: a District Attorney was CONVICTED of drunk driving (not simply accused or charged mind you) and because of this, Governor Rick Perry demanded this DA resign or else he was going to veto millions of dollars in state funds for that DA's office. When the DA refused, Rick Perry carried through his threat and is now being indicted for a supposed ethics violation by the "Public Integrity Unit" in the DA's office...

So, Rick Perry's attempt to have a DA take responsibility for her CRIMINAL actions and resign (in other words, showing some INTEGRITY as a DA) is being called unethical?? How about a DISTRICT ATTORNEY being convicted of drunk driving and not resigning as if they did nothing wrong or contrary to their duty as an enforcer of the law?

Need I say more?

UPDATE: Apparently I do. Turns out the DA in question (and the reason Perry vetoed the $7.5 million in funds) was found to have had a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit. Plus, here is a good video on her arrest via KXAN in Texas: