Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I suspect Rubio will be the GOP nominee. He's not milqtoast and uninspiring like Boooosh and he's not a complete loon like several of the other candidates.

Dem wise I still think it will be Clinton but Sanders is going to give her a run for her money.

Haven't you notice how little Rubio does interviews???

psss, he's a moron; he can't get one sentence deeper than his talking points. His campaign people know this and are trying to keep him going for as long as possible before the entire country finds out (they only get paid by the hour for as long as the campaigner is viable).

It's easy to hide Rubio when there are another 9 candidates on stage vying for time; any less and he'll look as viable as Chafee did on stage at the Dem debate.

If he does miraculously manage to get by a smaller GOP debating stage, however, I feel sorry for him - Hillary will mop his spilt Poland Spring Water, his profusive sweat, and him off the stage in the one-on-ones.

US Senate -- approval of incumbents, where available. I post this because a poll in Pennsylvania shows incumbent Senator Toomey with an approval of 28%. He's probably not that unpopular; the 51% approval from another pollster (I believe for a Republican firm) seems inflated. Senator Pat Toomey likely has an approval rating somewhere near the mean of those two ratings around 40%. But that average is very poor for the chances of an incumbent Republican winning re-election in any but a Republican wave year.



Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App Rep Dem

<40 5 0
40-44 1 0
45-49 1 2
50-54 3 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 2
retire 1 3
indict 0 1
oth off 2 0
no poll 9 2

... Senator Rand Paul is no longer running for the Presidency.

Carson and Trump are objecting to CNBC's format for the next debate, and are threatening to boycott. These two want no more than 2 hours total debate time with time reserved for the candidates to give opening and closing statements. CNBC wants time for a more substantial debate, and thinks leaving the moderators in control for a full three hours would enhance this.

I'd say (expletive deleted) Trump. If the clowns don't want to play, let the more serious candidates have the stage.

How would I handicap the Senate races?

First of all I see no appointed Senators running for reelection. Incumbents have shown that they could win in the past; appointed pols often show that they can't campaign effectively. We have none of those; they have a poor record of winning reelection.


Anyone with an approval rating of 50% or higher is basically a sure thing. Scott (SC), Schumer, and Blumenthal will be reelected. Chuck Grassley, even though he is from a state with a liberal record in recent years in statewide voting (although it did vote in Joni Ernst in an R wave year), seems to be able to get reelected so long as he chooses to run. Unless this octogenarian dies or his health fails, he wins reelection in 2016.

I don't need any polls to predict how Alabama, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, or Vermont will go. The incumbent Party has all the advantages, and nothing (like weakening margins of victory) suggests otherwise. "Weakening margins of victory" describe Georgia and Kansas; I call neither State a sure thing yet. Alaska is a possible D pick-up, but only if the Republicans try to oust Lisa Murkowski in a primary challenge.

Unless one is behind, having an approval rating of 45% practically ensures re-election so long as it holds. But that is a big if for Portman in Ohio. The race for the Ohio Senate race is a tossup. Democrats will likely win the seats of incumbents in Colorado and Washington.

Open seats are really touchy unless the state in question gives the Party of the retiring Senator every chance to be elected. Nevada is the most likely pickup for Republicans. Indiana is a wild card. States to the north, west, and east of Indiana that have similarities of culture have been trending D; Indiana is slower to make the trend because it is more rural. Quality matters in Indiana, and no statewide race is so certain that either Party can win with a turkey.

Most incumbents with approval ratings in the middle-to-high 40s get reelected. The exceptions are those behind another challenger which makes Ohio a possible pick-up for Democrats. I see Ohio as a toss-up for 2016 because even with a decent approval rating, Senator Portman seems to have an unusually-strong challenger. See "George Allen, 2006".

To be continued.

Florida, Kentucky, and Louisiana have incumbent Senators running for other offices. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seems to be paying no attention to a Senate seat that he would be in fairly good condition to seek a second term (45% approval). But if he stays in the residential race, his current seat becomes essentially open. Florida is a legitimate swing state, and the Democrats lead in some possible contests. The Senate race in Florida could decide who holds the Senate majority. Rand Paul seems to have abandoned his tiny chance to become President in time to defend his Senate seat. I would ordinarily expect that right-wing Louisiana would re-elect just about any Republican except in Greater New Orleans but Senator Vitter isn't doing well in his bid for a Governorship next month. He could be crippled in a reelection bid next year -- maybe. So far any chance for Democrats to win the current seat of Senator Vitter must for now be seen as a long shot.

The four most likely losses for incumbent Senators are, not surprisingly, those with low approval ratings in States that ordinarily vote Democratic in residential elections. Light shades of blue in Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin suggest high chances for R-to-D transitions. Republicans have a better chance of holding onto the seat of the incumbent Senator from Ohio or getting a fresh Republican Senator from Florida than holding onto current Senate seats in Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. Kirk, Toomey, and Johnson barely won in R wave years and 2016 does not look like an R-wave year.

Finally, we see several Republicans with execrable approval ratings -- incumbents in Arizona (Senator McCain is definitely past the 'sell-by date'), Arkansas, Missouri, and North Carolina. Should the Democrats put up a strong nominee in either of those states, then they have a strong chance of forcing an R-to-D transition in 2016.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

US Senate -- approval of incumbents, where available. I post this because a poll in Pennsylvania shows incumbent Senator Toomey with an approval of 28%. He's probably not that unpopular; the 51% approval from another pollster (I believe for a Republican firm) seems inflated. Senator Pat Toomey likely has an approval rating somewhere near the mean of those two ratings around 40%. But that average is very poor for the chances of an incumbent Republican winning re-election in any but a Republican wave year.



Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App Rep Dem

<40 5 0
40-44 1 0
45-49 1 2
50-54 3 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 2
retire 1 3
indict 0 1
oth off 2 0
no poll 9 2

... Senator Rand Paul is no longer running for the Presidency.

Your legend is a bit confusing. Do you mean, Red = Democrat running for re-election with current polls available?

I don't see any "tan" but I see pea-green.

Some observations on the state of things leading up to the 2016 elections, from the geriatric cynic.

Elections and the campaigns leading up to them are more and more devoid of issues. Policy, failed policies, proposed policies are discussed only superficially. Buzz words, “code words,” sound bites, sloganeering abounds.

For many decades now, our society has turned over most of the influence on our values to an entity that acknowledges NO responsibility for the kind of values that we have – namely the main-stream media, mostly television at last. Since the late 1950s, when TV arrived in virtually every household, it has become our primary baby-sitter. It is before which we plant our kids when we simply don’t want to deal with them for a while. Further, it is what most adults do with their down time.

It is who tells us what we should think, what we should buy, who we should elect to government posts, Yet, when confronted with its irresponsibility, it replies, “Hey, we are simply a business, our only responsibility is to our stockholders!” And the entertainment media further tell us that it is OUR responsibility to limit our exposure and our kids’ exposure to their drivel.

Finally, today, we find ourselves watching a campaign that, at the media level, is entirely about its entertainment value. We hear and see only those aspects that are about the “horse race.” Who leads in which polls. Whether or not some candidate’s statement expresses sufficient “authenticity.” So-called “debates” which are often just a forum for gotcha questions about issues that, in the final analysis, have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the country going forward.

Something has happened to our society that has destroyed our admiration for education, for technical excellence, for evidence-based belief systems, for good old common sense. I’m not sure what happened, but we live in a society where substantial numbers of the folks disapprove of the educated individual. Ignorance, frequently willful ignorance, is the currency of the day.

According to some studies, one out of four of us believes that we have been reincarnated. 44 percent believe in ghosts. 71 percent think there are angels about. Some 40 percent believe “God” created all things in their present form during the last 10,000 years or so. Approximately the same 40 percent (coincidentally?) are functionally illiterate. 20 percent think the sun might revolve around the earth.

Some of us were raised to be ashamed of our ignorance. We were urged to go to the library, to read books, to pay attention to opportunities to learn valuable knowledge and skills. Now we find that substantial numbers of our fellow citizens are attracted to a narcissistic blowhard ignoramus, who offers absolutely nothing but entertainment grist for the media’s mill.

As a country, it seems that our superficiality runs very deep.

When I read Garrison Keillor’s Homegrown Democrat, I was impressed with his description of how I remember that old-timey society – a mutuality of kindness, mixed with self-reliance, a willingness to work hard, yet find it in our hearts to help each other. It was a mixture of old-fashioned “conservatism” that one simply does not find in today’s Tea Partier, with the expectation that we must share what we have with the less fortunate. There was the availability of education – a time when it was possible to work full time in the summer and part time during the academic year, and get through college without a back-breaking burden of debt.

What in God’s name can have gotten into the heads of ordinary working men and women to convince them that they are better off as individuals,being up against the monolithic power of corporations, rather than having some real influence through collective bargaining? How can common sense tell that worker that he is better off, all by himself?

The so-called “Illegal Immigration” issue – does anyone look beneath the surface? Can you imagine the logistical details required to “round up” more than eleven million individuals, families, and deport them back to wherever? Can you even imagine what would have to be done, at the detail level? Has anyone ever proposed a sensible “solution” who has not been dismissed with derision by the political powers that be?

The U.S. foreign policy – where is it written that we must straighten out more than a century of misadventures in the middle east on the part of European powers? Why must we supply the military might for the protection of much of Europe, for Japan, for many other countries around the world? And, if we choose this role, why must we exercise it with such ignorant clumsiness?

I am truly afraid that we have come to a place where a real tyranny of the majority may emerge from this cesspool of political and social sewage, that would make Tocqueville shudder.

................................................

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your legend is a bit confusing. Do you mean, Red = Democrat running for re-election with current polls available?

Yes. I just tried to change it, but my browser is acting up.

I don't see any "tan" but I see pea-green.

The original source has my tan against a white background.

US Senate -- approval of incumbents, where available. I post this because a poll in Pennsylvania shows incumbent Senator Toomey with an approval of 28%. He's probably not that unpopular; the 51% approval from another pollster (I believe for a Republican firm) seems inflated. Senator Pat Toomey likely has an approval rating somewhere near the mean of those two ratings around 40%. But that average is very poor for the chances of an incumbent Republican winning re-election in any but a Republican wave year.



Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App Rep Dem

<40 5 0
40-44 1 0
45-49 1 2
50-54 3 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 2
retire 1 3
indict 0 1
oth off 2 0
no poll 9 2

... Senator Rand Paul is no longer running for the Presidency.

Originally Posted by TnT

Some observations on the state of things leading up to the 2016 elections.

Elections and the campaigns leading up to them are more and more devoid of issues. Policy, failed policies, proposed policies are discussed only superficially. Buzz words, “code words,” sound bites, sloganeering abounds.

For many decades now, our society has turned over most of the influence on our values to an entity that acknowledges NO responsibility for the kind of values that we have – namely the main-stream media, mostly television at last. Since the late 1950s, when TV arrived in virtually every household, it has become our primary baby-sitter. It is before which we plant our kids when we simply don’t want to deal with them for a while. Further, it is what most adults do with their down time.

It is who tells us what we should think, what we should buy, who we should elect to government posts, Yet, when confronted with its irresponsibility, it replies, “Hey, we are simply a business, our only responsibility is to our stockholders!” And the entertainment media further tell us that it is OUR responsibility to limit our exposure and our kids’ exposure to their drivel.
Finally, today, we find ourselves watching a campaign that, at the media level, is entirely about its entertainment value. We hear and see only those aspects that are about the “horse race.” Who leads in which polls. Whether or not some candidate’s statement expresses sufficient “authenticity.” So-called “debates” which are often just a forum for gotcha questions about issues that, in the final analysis, have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the country going forward.

Something has happened to our society that has destroyed our admiration for education, for technical excellence, for evidence-based belief systems, for good old common sense. I’m not sure what happened, but we live in a society where substantial numbers of the folks disapprove of the educated individual. Ignorance, frequently willful ignorance, is the currency of the day.
According to some studies, one out of four of us believes that we have been reincarnated. 44 percent believe in ghosts. 71 percent think there are angels about. Some 40 percent believe “God” created all things in their present form during the last 10,000 years or so. Approximately the same 40 percent (coincidentally?) are functionally illiterate. 20 percent think the sun might revolve around the earth.

Some of us were raised to be ashamed of our ignorance. We were urged to go to the library, to read books, to pay attention to opportunities to learn valuable knowledge and skills. Now we find that substantial numbers of our fellow citizens are attracted to a narcissistic blowhard ignoramus, who offers absolutely nothing but entertainment grist for the media’s mill.
As a country, it seems that our superficiality runs very deep.

When I read Garrison Keillor’s Homegrown Democrat, I was impressed with his description of how I remember that old-timey society – a mutuality of kindness, mixed with self-reliance, a willingness to work hard, yet find it in our hearts to help each other. It was a mixture of old-fashioned “conservatism” that one simply does not find in today’s Tea Partier, with the expectation that we must share what we have with the less fortunate. There was the availability of education – a time when it was possible to work full time in the summer and part time during the academic year, and get through college without a back-breaking burden of debt.

What in God’s name can have gotten into the heads of ordinary working men and women to convince them that they are better off as individuals,being up against the monolithic power of corporations, rather than having some real influence through collective bargaining? How can common sense tell that worker that he is better off, all by himself?

The so-called “Illegal Immigration” issue – does anyone look beneath the surface? Can you imagine the logistical details required to “round up” more than eleven million individuals, families, and deport them back to wherever? Can you even imagine what would have to be done, at the detail level? Has anyone ever proposed a sensible “solution” who has not been dismissed with derision by the political powers that be?

The U.S. foreign policy – where is it written that we must straighten out more than a century of misadventures in the middle east on the part of European powers? Why must we supply the military might for the protection of much of Europe, for Japan, for many other countries around the world? And, if we choose this role, why must we exercise it with such ignorant clumsiness?
I am truly afraid that we have come to a place where a real tyranny of the majority may emerge from this cesspool of political and social sewage, that would make Tocqueville shudder.

I think that is a thoughtful essay. Our superficiality does run deep. I'm not sure where we go from where we are.

Some of what you include as "ignorance," I disagree with; surprise surprise. And I think it points out something.

"According to some studies, one out of four of us believes that we have been reincarnated. 44 percent believe in ghosts. 71 percent think there are angels about."

These ideas became current during the last Awakening. Some young people then did take an interest on their own (and as part of the consciousness revolution) in looking deeper, and we were able to question a kind of superficiality that accepts conventional science at face value. We are as a country today, except among us new ager types and such, not even able to imagine what it means to look within. You and Rags for example, among the more-thoughtful posters here, think "looking within" means taking a microscope to your organism. The word chakras means nothing to you guys. You can't even perceive your own hearts. These ideas did not enter our society through mainstream media, but through an Awakening among the people. The last Awakening pointed the way toward liberation from this superficiality by asking us to question both traditional religion and traditional science, and traditional commercialized life paths as well.

On the other hand, our recent Awakening didn't do much to increase interest in reading or education in the long run. There was anti-intellectualism in it, no doubt. There was an aspect of "get out of your mind and come to your senses," which had a very valid point, but obviously did not promote intellect. There was also, on the other hand, a lot of interest in finding out about the wars and coverups, so criticism and journalism did flourish for a time. The only hope for the future would be that our society would experience another Awakening in which people throw off their slavery to the matrix of mass entertainment, and find fulfillment by turning within to their own cultural, intellectual and spiritual resources and those in their community. A lot of people I know are already boycotting the M.M.

Our recent Awakening was easily coopted by commerce, using its most sensational aspects, like the drive to be cool and sexy, and to focus on our image, to make money. That drive is not a bad thing in itself, but as it has become commercialized, it is distracting from a more reflective attitude. That's what the Establishment wants. Tech advances from the time of Star Wars were used increasingly to make movies and TV shows into violent spectacles instead of the deeper mythology that the movie also expressed. These same tech advances are making reading almost obsolete, as instead of thoughtful ideas, people are more interested in posting pictures and making short tweets and texts on their small devices. How many would read essays like this?

Quite a bit of what you mention is the result of deliberate actions by the Establishment to reverse the advances and reforms of the Awakening and the previous 4T. They were aroused to become active because these reforms really started to threaten their power and wealth by the 1970s. Since the time that their man Reagan was installed, their free-market, individualist propaganda has become increasingly accepted. Obama has tried to reverse it, but it will take further efforts by such people as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and other prophets to continue this reversal, and there's some evidence that the younger generation does not fall for it as much. The question is whether the new "civic" generation will develop the civic knowledge and skills necessary to enact real reforms. That has not happened yet. A lot depends on them learning to be true civics.

Originally Posted by TnT

Some observations on the state of things leading up to the 2016 elections, from the geriatric cynic.

Elections and the campaigns leading up to them are more and more devoid of issues. Policy, failed policies, proposed policies are discussed only superficially. Buzz words, “code words,” sound bites, sloganeering abounds.

For many decades now, our society has turned over most of the influence on our values to an entity that acknowledges NO responsibility for the kind of values that we have – namely the main-stream media, mostly television at last. Since the late 1950s, when TV arrived in virtually every household, it has become our primary baby-sitter. It is before which we plant our kids when we simply don’t want to deal with them for a while. Further, it is what most adults do with their down time.

By default we have allowed entertainment media too much authority in our lives. Remember -- television exists to entertain us. It was bad enough when it was mindless escapism; some of it is now soul-rot. Of course we can use video to enrich our lives but such implies a discretion that only intellectual sophistication can allow. Marvelous technology of providing circuses cannot redeem a corrupt and destructive spectacle.

It is who tells us what we should think, what we should buy, who we should elect to government posts, Yet, when confronted with its irresponsibility, it replies, “Hey, we are simply a business, our only responsibility is to our stockholders!” And the entertainment media further tell us that it is OUR responsibility to limit our exposure and our kids’ exposure to their drivel.

One must admit -- it is the advertising that supports almost all television. That advertising has transformed America from a country of small business to one of trusts and cartels. Political advertising on television is completely unreliable. The thirty-minute political ad offers only the opportunity to bamboozle viewers.

A general rule of good business is to not hurt ones customers.

Finally, today, we find ourselves watching a campaign that, at the media level, is entirely about its entertainment value. We hear and see only those aspects that are about the “horse race.” Who leads in which polls. Whether or not some candidate’s statement expresses sufficient “authenticity.” So-called “debates” which are often just a forum for gotcha questions about issues that, in the final analysis, have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the country going forward.

At least I can use some analysis to decide what stats are relevant and what aren't. "Clinton is up by 22 points over Bush in New York" or "Bush is up by 22 points in Alabama" means nothing. But contrast one election to another or see a trend -- such takes some skill.

Something has happened to our society that has destroyed our admiration for education, for technical excellence, for evidence-based belief systems, for good old common sense. I’m not sure what happened, but we live in a society where substantial numbers of the folks disapprove of the educated individual. Ignorance, frequently willful ignorance, is the currency of the day.

We are willing to ignore that formal education is necessary for codifying laws, judging the legal process, discerning the validity and relevance of evidence and testimony, making predictions of complicated phenomena, setting up manufacturing processes, and coherent writing.

According to some studies, one out of four of us believes that we have been reincarnated. 44 percent believe in ghosts. 71 percent think there are angels about. Some 40 percent believe “God” created all things in their present form during the last 10,000 years or so. Approximately the same 40 percent (coincidentally?) are functionally illiterate. 20 percent think the sun might revolve around the earth.

The medieval mind is alive and well in 21st-century America. It is a lazy mind, this time not so much cowed in fear as it is addled in hollow entertainment. The result can only be ill.

Some of us were raised to be ashamed of our ignorance. We were urged to go to the library, to read books, to pay attention to opportunities to learn valuable knowledge and skills. Now we find that substantial numbers of our fellow citizens are attracted to a narcissistic blowhard ignoramus, who offers absolutely nothing but entertainment grist for the media’s mill.

To paraphrase Socrates, wise people recognize their own ignorance. A consequence is that, to paraphrase Russell, the worst of us are certain of things demonstrably wrong.

As a country, it seems that our superficiality runs very deep.
When I read Garrison Keillor’s Homegrown Democrat, I was impressed with his description of how I remember that old-timey society – a mutuality of kindness, mixed with self-reliance, a willingness to work hard, yet find it in our hearts to help each other. It was a mixture of old-fashioned “conservatism” that one simply does not find in today’s Tea Partier, with the expectation that we must share what we have with the less fortunate. There was the availability of education – a time when it was possible to work full time in the summer and part time during the academic year, and get through college without a back-breaking burden of debt.

What in God’s name can have gotten into the heads of ordinary working men and women to convince them that they are better off as individuals, being up against the monolithic power of corporations, rather than having some real influence through collective bargaining? How can common sense tell that worker that he is better off, all by himself?

As with pathological drinkers and addicts we are going to have to hit bottom to recognize how messed-up we are. Our politicians, the propagandists on television infotainment, televangelists, and advertisers hook too many of us. Maybe not you or me, but I know people who are fooled. They are fooled not because they are stupid but because they are intellectually lazy. Just think of how little the typical participant in a 21st-century "Tea Party" knows about the original Tea Party.

College education may be expensive, but it is also ineffective in teaching people to think, to see reasonable limits to their own indulgence, to find things worthy of sacrifice, and to ask such questions as "What is the meaning of life?" No, his-and-hers Mercedes Benz automobiles in a three-car garage of the McMansion, single-malt scotch, winter vacations to tropical resorts, and new furniture every year do not make a suitable meaning in life. If those require the abuse and exploitation of others, then those who see the prospect of profiteering from economic brutality need see such as unworthy of their participation.

It is not a tragedy that an intelligent person who gets a college degree decides to become a small-town preacher and spends much of his time comforting people badly neglected, visiting the sick, and convincing people to act charitably rather than become a financial analyst. Neither is it a tragedy that someone who works his way through college while working on an assembly line becomes a shop steward instead of becoming a traveling salesman. Economic gain and the indulgence that it allows are not the duty of humanity. We neglect basic human needs, including justice and comfort at the risk of the viability of the social order.

The so-called “Illegal Immigration” issue – does anyone look beneath the surface? Can you imagine the logistical details required to “round up” more than eleven million individuals, families, and deport them back to wherever? Can you even imagine what would have to be done, at the detail level? Has anyone ever proposed a sensible “solution” who has not been dismissed with derision by the political powers that be?

I have suggested that it would take a Soviet-style internal passport that one would be obliged to carry at all times. Even on the beach. It would be perfect for keeping tabs upon Americans, and that such would debase the assumptions of life that most of us grew up with.

The U.S. foreign policy – where is it written that we must straighten out more than a century of misadventures in the middle east on the part of European powers? Why must we supply the military might for the protection of much of Europe, for Japan, for many other countries around the world? And, if we choose this role, why must we exercise it with such ignorant clumsiness?

I am truly afraid that we have come to a place where a real tyranny of the majority may emerge from this cesspool of political and social sewage, that would make Tocqueville shudder.

And Orwell. And Bradbury. And Huxley.

Less than 24 hours after trimming staff and cutting salaries of campaign staff, Jeb Bush takes a shot at the Republican electorate at a town hall meeting in Daniel Island, SC. With Rep. Trey Gowdy to his right and Sen. Tim Scott to his left, Jeb Bush played campaign defense for almost the entire town hall. Before the first question was asked, Jeb Bush opened the town hall by saying “Before the first question comes about how my life has been in the last 24 hours,” Bush started, “we’ve made an adjustment in our campaign. That’s what leaders do.”

Essentially down playing the poll numbers and dwindling fund raising support, Jeb Bush appeared frustrated during the entire event. When asked on the decline in fund raising and slashing of salaries, Jeb responded by saying, “Look, I’ve had 32 years in business. And in business, when you anticipate how things are going to be, you anticipate them. You don’t wait until they happen. That’s what Washington does,” Bush said. “In my world, what you do is you anticipate where you’re going to be and move towards it.”

When asked whether or not these recent moves were the beginning of the end of his campaign, he literally responded, and I am quoting, “Blah, blah, blah. That’s my answer.” He took several opportunities attacking front runner Donald Trump throughout the town hall, a move that has historically been a terrible idea for the Bush campaign. During one exchange, he made a comment that many are considering the death knell of his 2016 chances. Attempting to contrast himself with Donald Trump and the current gridlock in Washington, Bush said “If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done, then I don’t want anything, I don’t want any part of it,” Bush said. “I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that.”

https://rawconservative.com/2015/10/jebtanks/

Match-ups involving Hillary Clinton against political veterans:

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush



Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee




Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Red for the Democratic nominee and blue for the Republican nominee as in my source (Leip's US Election Atlas)

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

...Jeb Bush may become irrelevant fast, in view of his emotional meltdown -- I have seen nothing like it since Edmund Muskie melted down in 1972 as the result of Nixon-era dirty tricks. Jeb's meltdown is 100%self-inflicted.

Hillary Clinton vs. those with no electoral experience:

Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson



Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

The Republican "non-politicians" are apparently faring better than those with elective experience.

Match-ups involving Joe Biden:


Joseph Biden (D) vs. Jeb Bush (R)



Joseph Biden (D) vs. Ben Carson (R)





Joseph Biden (D) vs. Carly Fiorina (R)





Joseph Biden (D) vs. Donald Trump(R)




30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

...So far as I can tell, the match-ups involving Joe Biden look much as those involving Hillary Clinton did before the disclosure of the server 'scandal' and the horrible death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The Vice President was a suitable alternative should Hillary Clinton be discredited and Bernie Sanders prove too radical. He had to know.

The maps for Hillary Clinton are going to look much like those for Joe Biden, who looked on the brink of an electoral blow-out. A Secretary of State cannot micro-manage the movements of an Ambassador in extreme danger. Those familiar with the Star Trek universe can see the death of Ambassador Stevens analogous to the Kobiyashi Maru test -- there will be hopeless situations with no right answer; it is how one responds to a tragic situation about which one can do nothing and tragic consequences for persons for whom one feels something (including oneself) that says much about the person.

Hillary Clinton passed that test.

US Senate -- approval of incumbents up for re-election in 2016, where available. New poll on Ohio by Zogby.

Two states that rarely get polled for which I might need to bend the rules.

The incumbent Republicans Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) are in very different situations. By objective standards, the incumbent Senator Mike Lee is up 55-25 in an early poll over his most credible prospective opponent. I'd guess that the approval of an incumbent Senator getting 55% of the vote has an approval rating in excess of 50% -- my guess, but I am showing it.

Jerry Moran (R-KS) gets these results:

11% very satisfied
31% somewhat satisfied
24% neutral
20% somewhat dissatisfied
15% very dissatisfied


https://www.fhsu.edu/uploadedFiles/e...%202015%20.pdf

Not the usual language of approval and disapproval, but it seems close enough. We see few Kansas polls. This is NOT solid, and Moran probably wins because he is in Kansas. But he does have some campaigning to do. "Very satisfied" and "somewhat satisfied" add to 42%. Above water. I am treating "satisfaction" as approval, "neutral" as undecided, and "dissatisfaction" with disapproval. It is worth noting that Senate and Gubernatorial elections have been getting closer in recent years in Kansas, and that the current Governor and R-dominated State legislature endure putrid approvals, suggesting the possibility of a Democratic trend. Kansas may not be a Republican lock indefinitely. Kansas moderates might drift slowly Democratic or defect en masse to the Democratic Party.




Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App Rep Dem

<40 6 0
40-44 2 0
45-49 1 2
50-54 4 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 2
retire 1 3
indict 0 1
oth off 2 0
no poll 7 2

... Senator Rand Paul is no longer running for the Presidency.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Less than 24 hours after trimming staff and cutting salaries of campaign staff, Jeb Bush takes a shot at the Republican electorate at a town hall meeting in Daniel Island, SC. With Rep. Trey Gowdy to his right and Sen. Tim Scott to his left, Jeb Bush played campaign defense for almost the entire town hall. Before the first question was asked, Jeb Bush opened the town hall by saying “Before the first question comes about how my life has been in the last 24 hours,” Bush started, “we’ve made an adjustment in our campaign. That’s what leaders do.”

Essentially down playing the poll numbers and dwindling fund raising support, Jeb Bush appeared frustrated during the entire event. When asked on the decline in fund raising and slashing of salaries, Jeb responded by saying, “Look, I’ve had 32 years in business. And in business, when you anticipate how things are going to be, you anticipate them. You don’t wait until they happen. That’s what Washington does,” Bush said. “In my world, what you do is you anticipate where you’re going to be and move towards it.”

When asked whether or not these recent moves were the beginning of the end of his campaign, he literally responded, and I am quoting, “Blah, blah, blah. That’s my answer.” He took several opportunities attacking front runner Donald Trump throughout the town hall, a move that has historically been a terrible idea for the Bush campaign. During one exchange, he made a comment that many are considering the death knell of his 2016 chances. Attempting to contrast himself with Donald Trump and the current gridlock in Washington, Bush said “If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done, then I don’t want anything, I don’t want any part of it,” Bush said. “I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that.”

https://rawconservative.com/2015/10/jebtanks/

This morning, Morning Joe Scarborough took that and Donald Trump's lasting bashing that Jeb had gone to mommy and daddy for help to basically put the nail in Jeb! run. I think its over.

Also, Rubio came out and talked about how he's bored with the Senate and will not seek reelection to his seat. This came after a report that he's the lowest voting Senator in the Senate, AND that was before he declared his candidacy for President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f92_story.html

Rubio gives up on Senate: ‘He hates it’

The Morning Joe crew were merciless about that - asking where he was spending his time AND suggesting some of that perception of Millie attitude of being at work for only three days and expecting a promotion - "gee, I've been a Senator for three years and the mean old Senate won't pass my brilliant immigration bill that will impact generations! Whaaaaa!" Fair or not to Rubio (and Millies), if wingnut Joe is saying this, Trump is going to go in for the kill. I think this could soon lead to comparisons to Palin's 1/2 Governor meme.

Carson has a shot of winning Iowa from the Evangeline voters but he's got no where to go after that with the remaining primary states. Fiorina has already fizzled out. Christie is not going anywhere and it is unlikely Kaisch can ever appeal to the Trump/Carson supporters.

If it's not Trump in the end, it will be one of the most hated pols in the business, Ted Cruz.

Does anyone get the sense that for at least the WH, the 2016 election is already over?

US Senate -- approval of incumbents, where available.

What I suspected (thank you, playwrite, for the link to the Washington Post) has become definitive: Marco Rubio (US Senate, R-FL) will abandon all efforts to hold his current Senate seat. An approval rating for him is no longer relevant to whether the Republicans can hold his seat.





Approval polls only.




Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange -- Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Tan -- incumbent Senator credibly running for another office. Approval and party (D, R) shown


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App Rep Dem

<40 6 0
40-44 2 0
45-49 0 2
50-54 4 0
55-59 0 0
>60 0 2
retire 2 3
indict 0 1
oth off 2 0
no poll 7 2


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Kansas


Edge R:
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Pennsylvania


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
New Hampshire*
Ohio*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.

Heres' why Trump could win, written by a millennial:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/...d-be-president

Remember he has the best cosmic horoscope score of any Republican running. Watch out!

(that's no guarantee though, if you have little or no name recognition, or a bad name recognition! Jeb has a good score, and so did Chafee and Webb)

Bush is not out yet. Rubio has some chance too, but will not win the general election.

Originally Posted by TnT

... we find ourselves watching a campaign that, at the media level, is entirely about its entertainment value. We hear and see only those aspects that are about the “horse race.” Who leads in which polls. ...

Here's a fundamental question that I would like to ask any of our so-called candidates for public office:

What kind of country, in detail, do want us all to live in?

Trump's bluster can't maintain interest long term. Even if he makes it to the Primaries, I don't expect him to make it past there. He may not even last that long.

Boooooosh is predictably flagging. The onset of the Millie demographic will wipe him out. He is incapable of resonating with Millies. With X, he's only marginally effective.

So, again, Rubio.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump's bluster can't maintain interest long term. Even if he makes it to the Primaries, I don't expect him to make it past there. He may not even last that long.

Boooooosh is predictably flagging. The onset of the Millie demographic will wipe him out. He is incapable of resonating with Millies. With X, he's only marginally effective.

So, again, Rubio.

Yes, barring an implosion by Rubio I see him as the most likely 'pug nominee in '16.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump's bluster can't maintain interest long term. Even if he makes it to the Primaries, I don't expect him to make it past there. He may not even last that long.

Boooooosh is predictably flagging. The onset of the Millie demographic will wipe him out. He is incapable of resonating with Millies. With X, he's only marginally effective.

So, again, Rubio.

The people walking around with baseball caps reading "Make America Great Again!" are not Millies.

The recognition is slowly dawning -

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/polit...s-gop-race.ece

Bush patriarch finds little familiar in today’s GOP race

....“I have no feeling for the electorate anymore,” said John Sununu, the former New Hampshire governor who helped the elder Bush win the 1988 primary there and went on to serve as his White House chief of staff. “It is not responding the way it used to. Their priorities are so different that if I tried to analyze it I’d be making it up.”

After Bush pulls out and it becomes clear that Carson was a one-state Evangeline outlier (and Trump is currently undercutting that), the Donald will turn his full attention to Rubio and make mince meat out of him as the boy trying to live in a man's world but not getting much of anything done but whining - it will be nasty but it will be effective.

This polling of TPM readers, based on a fairly straight-forward self-identification, is very telling -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...m-primary-race

Looking At the Dem Primary Race

As I mentioned just after the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton's support has increased substantially among our readers. But the gender breakdown is striking. Now, needless to say, I'm not surprised that Clinton has stronger support among female voters. But the split between men and women is quite stark.

At present, among male readers Clinton beats Sanders 48% to 40%. Among female readers, however, her margin is 61% to 29%. So a relatively close race among men and a two to one advantage among women.

We also looked at the breakdown by ideology. Here the results aren't terribly surprising. But it's interesting to see how the numbers break down. We've been experimenting with various ways readers and voters classify themselves ideologically. We've tried different words and phrases like "left" "center-left" "liberal" "progressive" etc. But these words have a very muddy and inconsistent meaning. Nowadays "progressive" is often used to signify more to the left than "liberal". But in the 90s, "progressive" was being used by people closer to the center to distinguish themselves from "liberals". So for instance, the DLC's think tank was the Progressive Policy Institute. Both meanings seem current today.

So what we've tried doing more recently is using a simple numeric breakdown. "On a scale of 1 to 10, in which 1 is the furthest left and 10 is the furthest right, where would you place yourself on the ideological spectrum?"

This approach has shortcomings too. But it at least dispenses with some of the language ambiguity. If you say you're a 1 you are definitely further to the left than someone who says they're a 4, etc. We also add simple text descriptors after each number 1 (far left), 2 (left), 3 (center left), 4 (center left), 5 (just left of center).

So how did it breakdown?

Only among 1s does Sanders beat Clinton. And by a big margin, almost two to one: Clinton 32% Sanders 58%.

Even among 2s, though, Clinton is narrowly ahead: Clinton 47%, Sanders 44%. Among 3s Clinton is already ahead 2:1. And it's basically the same for 4s and 5s

Helps explain why HC will win Iowa but not New Hampshire, and without some sort of momentum meme emerging or some big HC mistake, Bernie's support will top out in the 25% range in all the subsequent primaries.