This is about politics rather than directly about crime, but with the Supreme Court hanging in the balance in this election, we have to pay attention.
Donald Trump won three of four primaries yesterday, but the WSJ/NBC poll confirms what many of us have believed for some time -- he is the front runner because and only because the voters who dislike him are divided among several other candidates.
In Question 12, the simple "who do you favor" question shows Trump with a 3 point lead over Cruz. However, when a second choice is asked and the results combined, Trump comes in last.
In Questions 13-15, heads up matches between Trump and the other three candidates yield solid majorities for each of the others.
Questions 17-20 ask about potential general election choices. Trump loses by double digits to Hillary Clinton and even to socialist Bernie Sanders. Cruz and Rubio are neck-and-neck with Clinton. They didn't ask about Kasich.
One of the other candidates, but only one, can stop the Trump juggernaut and have a real shot at winning the general election, saving the Nation and the Constitution from the disaster of another four or eight years of a left-wing White House. Given that we already have one vacancy on the Supreme Court and are likely to have more, it is absolutely essential for the non-Trump voters to coalesce around one alternative.
That last paragraph is solely my personal opinion. CJLF does not endorse or oppose candidates for office.
Update: This post is largely about polls, but the Michigan Democratic primary yesterday gave us another reminder that polling is not as reliable as it used to be. The Real Clear Politics average of polls, so often confidently cited as the oracle, had Hillary Clinton up 21.4%. Bernie Sanders actually won by 1.5%. James Taranto has this column in the WSJ.
In Question 12, the simple "who do you favor" question shows Trump with a 3 point lead over Cruz. However, when a second choice is asked and the results combined, Trump comes in last.
In Questions 13-15, heads up matches between Trump and the other three candidates yield solid majorities for each of the others.
Questions 17-20 ask about potential general election choices. Trump loses by double digits to Hillary Clinton and even to socialist Bernie Sanders. Cruz and Rubio are neck-and-neck with Clinton. They didn't ask about Kasich.
One of the other candidates, but only one, can stop the Trump juggernaut and have a real shot at winning the general election, saving the Nation and the Constitution from the disaster of another four or eight years of a left-wing White House. Given that we already have one vacancy on the Supreme Court and are likely to have more, it is absolutely essential for the non-Trump voters to coalesce around one alternative.
That last paragraph is solely my personal opinion. CJLF does not endorse or oppose candidates for office.
Update: This post is largely about polls, but the Michigan Democratic primary yesterday gave us another reminder that polling is not as reliable as it used to be. The Real Clear Politics average of polls, so often confidently cited as the oracle, had Hillary Clinton up 21.4%. Bernie Sanders actually won by 1.5%. James Taranto has this column in the WSJ.
I agree, Kent, and I have long been saying that Gov Kasich is the very best anti-Trump candidate, and I have been saying this to anyone who would listen since August 2015. I strongly believe (as other polls have long shown), Gov Kasich has the best chance to beat Hillary in the general because he puts the rust-belt states in play AND his record on an array of social/criminal justice issues makes him much more appealing to younger and minority voters than the other remaining GOP options.
I know I have an Ohio bias, but I think the GOP base has made its own bed by failing to fully understand that it is losing hugely important generations/blocks of voters outside the deep south and it must soon embrace a candidate who will help stop this "demographic bleeding." Senator Rubio might have helped in this arena, but he is even more of a lightweight than Obama was in 2008. And Chris Christie, if he really believed everything he said on the campaign trail about Govs being best, should have backed Kasich right after New Hampshire and helped take down Rubio (who'd become a perfect VP on a Kasich ticket). Similarly, Jeb Bush and other Bush-circle folks likewise should have had the sense after NH to see Kasich is best viable anti-Trump, especially because he could/would keep the focus on the economy and make the case that he would balance federal budgets in a way that truly does rein in fed govt excess.
I could go on and on, but I do not want to seem like too much of a shill for my Gov (whom I get a chance to vote for next week). But I could not resist this forum to express my frustration that the GOP base/activists seem to have ignored my Gov simply because he made a "good govt" choice to expand Medicaid which, I believe, has significantly helped both the economy and crime rates in the Buckeye State.
Governor Kasich is a good man and would make an excellent President. As a matter of practical political realities, though, it is hard to see his path to the nomination.
Frankly, I doubt he will still be in the race when I get to vote in June. I hope there still is a race.
Do you share my fear, Kent, that many within the GOP (both the "establishment" and the "movement" folks) have contributed greatly to his problematic path by backing in various ways obviously flawed candidates like Jeb and Carson and Christie and now Cruz and Rubio?
This primary election season has been so weird that I'm not even going to try to dissect it like that.
I am not a Trump fanatic. But if he becomes president I believe that he would nominate someone worthy of replacing Justice Scalia.
And, although I have no empirical data to support my opinion, I believe Trump's criminal justice policies would meet with the approval of the CJLF. Maybe not 100% approval. But no one gets 100% of what they want.
I will concede that having watched Trump's career over the last 30 years, he seems to be a pragmatist (among other things) who is not as beholden to unbending principle (as Ted Cruz). But I believe on some issues, including who should replace Justice Scalia, Trump's nominee would be just as palatable to the conservative arm of the GOP as would a Cruz nominee.
FWIW, I believe that Kasich is the best qualified GOP candidate. If he wins Ohio and performs well in other states, he still has a chance at a contested convention. But if that occurs, and if the GOP power brokers and party rules experts (like Ben Ginsburb) deny Trump the nomination if he has a majority of the delegates, the GOP as we know it is done.
Doug --
"I know I have an Ohio bias, but I think the GOP base has made its own bed by failing to fully understand that it is losing hugely important generations/blocks of voters outside the deep south and it must soon embrace a candidate who will help stop this 'demographic bleeding.'"
The "bed" it has made consists or more Congressmen (247) than at any time since 1930; a Senate majority sufficient to withstand a few defections; 31 Republican governors to 18 Democratic ones; and 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -- the highest number in the history of the Party.
In other words, the Republicans are in better shape than they have been within the lifetime of anyone likely to be reading this, and considerably better than under their two most popular Presidents of my life, Eisenhower and Reagan.
The numbers are what they are. If the Republicans are sick, the Dems are on life support.
Paul,
Based on what?
Cruz has already made pretty clear who he would like on the bench, Mike Luttig.
Trump likes his very liberal and partial birth abortion supporting sister.
That is a huge difference.
I agree, TarlsQtr, that Cruz is a lock for conservatives when it comes to the Court. But if the choice on this issue (as may be the case after March 15) is between Trump and Hillary, don't you agree that the decision is clear, regardless of Trump's trumpeting his sister's credentials?
P.S. Trump has stated that he would never nominate his sister to the Court given their relationship.
Bill, I do not disagree that Republicans are doing very well "down ticket," and I think that is in part because the GOP tent seems to get bigger as it moves down ticket (see, e.g., GOP govs Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, reps like Mia Love). But, looking at the electorial map, I do not think it wrong to believe, as the GOP analysis suggested after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, that a GOP Prez candidate needs to some broader appeal to the general electorate. (I still find stunning the fact that Mitt Romney in 2012 secured a higher percentage of the white vote than Reagan did in 1980, but obviously achieved far different state-by-state results.)
It seems to me quite possible that front-runner Donald J. Trump will be able to repackage his rhetoric and claims to appeal to broader demographics. But I think he will need to in order to be our next Prez.
-- "Down ticket" is a somewhat tepid way to describe better-than-ever ascendency in essentially every elective office except the presidency.
-- The most noticeable thing about Haley, Martinez and Love is that they are heartland conservatives. They ran as such and won as such.
-- There are a variety of reasons Romney lost. One is that it's difficult (although not impossible) to unseat a President running for a second term. Another is that, at the time, Republicans were still living with Bush's lingering unpopularity. Probably the most important was that Romney was a latter day Thomas E. Dewey. His likability was below Obama's, and that counts for a great deal.
-- I think identity politics is corrosive if not poisonous, and I'm glad Republicans practice it less than Democrats (although not enough less for my liking). And it's not that it's "divisive," whatever that means. It's that it shifts the discussion from ideas and programs to skin color and gender, which are morally irrevelvant.
I agree, TarlsQtr, that Cruz is a lock for conservatives when it comes to the Court. But if the choice on this issue (as may be the case after March 15) is between Trump and Hillary, don't you agree that the decision is clear, regardless of Trump's trumpeting his sister's credentials?
P.S. Trump has stated that he would never nominate his sister to the Court given their relationship.