The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: 2016 presidential
In Podcast, Obama Says He Would Have Defeated Trump – Who Tweets “No Way!”

In Podcast, Obama Says He Would Have Defeated Trump – Who Tweets “No Way!”

HONOLULU (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama said in an interview broadcast on Monday that he would have won most Americans’ support if he had been able to run against Donald Trump for a third term.

“No way!” Trump countered in a tweet, citing as liabilities U.S. companies taking jobs overseas, the fight against Islamic State militants and Obama’s signature healthcare law.

Barred by the U.S. Constitution from seeking a third four-year-term, the president told his former adviser David Axelrod in a podcast that Americans would have backed Obama’s vision.

“I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” Obama said, referring to his 2008 campaign message of hope and change.

A wealthy businessman, the Republican Trump will assume his first public office when he succeeds Obama on January 20. He defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton on November 8 with a promise to clean up Washington.

In a tweet, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said Obama would have beaten Trump and Clinton would have won if not for an FBI statement shortly before the election disclosing new material on Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state.

Clinton’s aides have said FBI Director James Comey’s announcement, which led to no charges, swung the election, a charge Trump’s team has dismissed.

Obama said Clinton “performed wonderfully under really tough circumstances.” He said she focused on Trump’s flaws and could have argued more that the Democratic Party agenda helped working people.

Trump garnered more than 270 of the 538 state-by-state electoral votes to win the presidency. Clinton won 48.2 percent of the popular vote compared with 46.1 percent for Trump, according to the Associated Press.

(Reporting and writing by Emily Stephenson with Obama in Hawaii; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey in Washington; Editing by Howard Goller)

Don’t Get Too Caught Up In The Trump, Carson ‘Panic’

Don’t Get Too Caught Up In The Trump, Carson ‘Panic’

By Stuart Rothenberg, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The panic is palpable from the media and too many GOP “insiders.”

The Republican Party is going to nominate Donald Trump or Ben Carson for president, guaranteeing Barry Goldwater-style losses in the 2016 elections and threatening the Republic. Or, as The Washington Post put it on Page 1 of its Nov. 13 issue, “GOP preps panic button,” and “Party elites see doom if Trump or Carson win.”

Granted, Trump and Carson continue to do well in the polls, and Republican voters are so frustrated and angry, including with their own political leaders, that they now seem more inclined than ever to throw out the old rulebook, which places a premium on political experience, knowledge of the issues and a thoughtful, measured, mature approach if someone wants to be seen as a serious contender for president.

But before you do anything, take a deep breath. Voters have not thrown out the rulebook yet, and they may very well not do it in February or later in the nominating process.

As I have noted in the past, it’s easy to tell pollsters that you support this or that candidate in the summer or fall of an off-year. You aren’t really making a decision. You merely are telling pollsters which candidates you like at that moment — and liking what someone says or stands for six months, or even two months, before Iowa is not the same thing as deciding what you will do the night of the caucuses.

At this point in the 2008 cycle, 10 weeks before the Republican Iowa caucuses, John McCain was comfortably ahead of the GOP field according to polling back then, with Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and a strengthening Mike Huckabee fighting it out for second place. But Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee were all in the low double-digits, while McCain was in the mid-20s to mid-30s in polling. Huckabee ended up winning by 9 points.

Ten weeks before the 2012 Iowa GOP caucuses, Herman Cain was battling with Mitt Romney for the lead in polls. A month later, Cain was toast and Newt Gingrich had a big lead in the race. Ultimately, a candidate who was in the low single digits 10 weeks before the Iowa caucuses won them (Rick Santorum).

Yes, I find it more than a little odd that Republicans have such a favorable view of both Carson and Trump at this point in the race — Carson had a 71 percent favorable rating and Trump a 69 percent favorable rating in a Nov. 4-8 ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Research.

But Trump’s unfavorable rating is relatively high as well (29 percent, compared with 18 percent for Carson), and most Iowans have not started to firm up their decisions about who they will support when the caucuses actually roll around on Feb. 1, still 2 1/2 months away.

Just as important, let’s remember who won the last two Iowa caucuses: Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. So even if Carson or, less likely, Trump were to finish first in Iowa, it would not necessarily mean that he was headed to Cleveland to be the GOP nominee. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa Republican caucuses in 1980.

As we all know, 25 percent of the vote can win the Iowa caucuses, but the eventual nominee will need to rally at least half of Republicans around his or her candidacy.

Of course, this time could be different. We always say that. And, of course, it’s possible that 2016 is 1964.

But don’t get too caught up in all of the hype about Trump and Carson, as even too many in the media are doing. Of course, the over-the-top stories in the media are understandable. After all, “GOP preps panic button” is a heck of a lot more compelling headline than “It’s still 10 weeks till Iowa,” isn’t it?

Trump’s latest eruption, at the end of last week, may have been amusing to some and solidified his reputation as a tough-talker, but it isn’t likely to help his long-term prospects in the Republican race.

As I wrote in a reassessment of Trump in early September, he has remained a factor in the Republican race. But it is still more likely than not that when Republican caucus-goers really get down to picking a candidate, Trump’s increasingly outlandish comments will make him look less presidential and less appealing.

©2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: Republican U.S. presidential candidate and businessman Donald Trump speaks as rival candidate Dr. Ben Carson (R) looks on at the debate held by Fox Business Network for the top 2016 U.S. Republican presidential candidates in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 10, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young

Paul Ryan Doesn’t Believe In Climate Science

Paul Ryan Doesn’t Believe In Climate Science

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has taken the familiar Republican chorus of “I am not a scientist” one step further, by stating that he does not believe that science can know whether or not human activity is to blame climate change.

During an hour-long debate against Democratic challenger Rob Zerban on Monday, the moderator posed to both candidates the question of whether human pollution impacts climate change. The Associated Press reports that Ryan responded, “I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t think science does, either.”

But science does know. A survey that collected 11,944 peer-reviewed papers from 1991-2011 on the topics “global climate change” or “global warming” found that 97 percent expressed the position that humans are impacting global warming. Similarly, NASA has concluded that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is very likely causing climate change.

Ryan has doubted climate science before. In July, speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington, the congressman said, “Climate change occurs no matter what.” At that breakfast, Ryan also claimed that EPA efforts to reduce emissions from power plants were “outside of the confines of the law,” and “an excuse to grow government, raise taxes, and slow down economic growth.”

At the debate on Monday, Ryan again stood behind his opposition to implementing plans to fight climate change. Ryan’s stance that “the benefits do not outweigh the costs” (of proposals that would limit climate change) stood in stark contrast to Zerban’s point that “this is an opportunity to invest a dime to save a dollar.”

Ryan is heavily favored to win re-election to his seat in GOP-leaning southern Wisconsin.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!