CO-Quinnipiac: Dems getting crushed, Sanders does slightly better than Hillary

[pbrower2a]

Republicans gain support in the wake of terror attacks, as they usually talk tougher than Democrats. Republicans in recent years have been able to get away with the harshest, cruelest, and even most irrational rhetoric (Kill! Smash Islam! Ban Sharia Law! Keep Syrian refugees out! Maybe even loose the nukes!)

It might not be good public policy, but it is the strongest tool that Republicans have in their campaign.

We may be seeing this now, and for now it looks bad for Democrats. The Colorado polls may reflect this. Live with it. If it sticks, then expect Democrats to lose the Presidency and even net losses in the Senate as Republicans make serious bids at Senate seats that now seem safe.

President Obama plays chess, and his opponents play slot machines. He also seems to prefer to serve revenge cold (pardon the Star Trek reference). He blusters only after the fact. He has the tact to let the French do the current air assault on ISIS.

Colorado has swung in recent years from a very right-wing state to a slightly-liberal state. Maybe that reflects exhaustion of agendas that give openings one way or the other.

So how has the state voted?

2012 51-46
2008 53-46
2004 47-52
2000 42-50 (Nader 5)
1996 44-46 (Perot 7)
1992 40-35 (Perot 22)

Colorado may be cyclical. The Colorado Right is about as far to the right as the Wyoming Right; the Colorado Left is about as far to the left as the California Left. Maybe a few years after one Party gets a majority it goes too far for the swing voters and the state then swings. The state seems to vote to an unusual extent for Third Part candidates (it gave 11% of its vote for Anderson in 1980).

That's one possibility. The other for now is that for now, the prospective electorate nationwide looks like one characteristic of 2010 or 2014, in which case America elects a very right-wing President and strengthens the GOP hold on both Houses of Congress. Another is that demographics return the 2008-2012 pattern in Colorado and we have a blip that won't stick. Pick your interpretation. You have no accountability for it now.

It's easy to see a cycle as a long-term trend.  How can we know the difference? We can't. Extrapolation of a short-term trend that does not have some irresistible cause is one of the riskiest projections possible. Republicans are not going to win 100% of the vote in a free election in West Virginia.

  

 

[pbrower2a]

lol quinnijunk

It makes sense in view of a terrorist strike that brings out the worst fears in people even if it is in another country. Fear promotes right-wing authoritarians, and all Republican candidates for President are right-wing authoritarians. Not one of the prospective nominees for President is simply a conservative who prefers a measured response to danger than exploiting fear for every possible advantage.

Polls this week in Florida, Iowa, and New Hampshire show much the same trend. It's not only Colorado. If the Presidential election were to be held today, then just about any Republican nominee would defeat Hillary Clinton in a landslide.  Such is this moment of time. The only states with ten or more electoral votes that she would win would be California, Washington, Wisconsin, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and perhaps New Jersey.  You can fill in the gaps in the description, but in general the only state that Hillary Clinton would win if the election were held today the only states that aren't on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts would be Vermont and Wisconsin. It is that bad.

Right-wing authoritarians thrive on fear -- fear of ethnic and racial minorities, fear of crime, fear of terrorism, fear of conspiracies, fear of other religions, fear of Divine judgment, fear of hostile powers, fear of arcane conspiracies, and fear of the general demise of civilization. Solutions? Such would take away the appeal of fear-mongers and the whole basis of right-wing authoritarianism. It's hard to sell people on hierarchy, inequality, and repression for their own sake if they endure them; people tolerate them only in fear. Oddly a real danger that requires some economic regimentation (global warming) is out of their sight.

Although there is some diversity among objects of fear of right-wing authoritarians, fear is the cornerstone of them all. Adolf Hitler had little to offer but fear, and had no qualms about provoking the most destructive assaults by foreign enemies as proof of some apocalyptic danger. We all know about the Klan and the Birch Society. Theocratic rightists like Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson may eschew racism (modern antisemitism is racist in its seedy philosophizing) but see a deterioration of Christian faith as the cause of an impending ruin of Western civilization.   

Radical reforms (the Far Left) or even measured responses (conservatism) might work better in solving problems, but they require rational thought.  Because it is his nature President Obama can hardly consider anything other than a measured response to a terrorist threat. Unlike the authoritarian Right which can bluster as intensely and recklessly as it wishes while calling the President 'weak' and 'indecisive'. Republicans gain in a climate of fear and lose only when either someone else solves the problem or the Republicans fail catastrophically.

That 'weak' and 'indecisive' President has dispatched plenty of terrorists to the Infernal Inn that the damned never check out of.  I expect more of the same.   

[pbrower2a]

Colorado seems very polarized between Left and Right with little center. When the Left gets its way the center goes with the Right after the Left goes too far after a short time. When the Right gets its way for a few years and goes too far, the center goes Left. Colorado was a hotbed of the Sagebrush Revolt a couple decades ago after having seemed to have gone rather progressive. 

[pbrower2a]

The numbers look awfully friendly to Republicans but this is of course a state where Clinton will perform more poorly than Obama did.

Barack Obama is, except for LBJ in the weird electoral year of 1964, the strongest Democratic vote-getter as a Democratic nominee for President in a binary election since FDR.  So on the average one would expect any Democratic nominee to do worse than he did.

Q may underpoll Hispanics, a voting bloc that has recently sealed elections for Democrats in Colorado.

Note that this poll is after the terrorist attacks in Paris, and Republicans typically gain in polls in a climate in which fear of terror is intensified -- even if the Republicans have bumbled into it or the Democrats are blameless.

Republicans win the Presidency in 2016 if they can make national security the focus.   

[pbrower2a]

The numbers look awfully friendly to Republicans but this is of course a state where Clinton will perform more poorly than Obama did.

Barack Obama is, except for LBJ in the weird electoral year of 1964, the strongest Democratic vote-getter as a Democratic nominee for President in a binary election since FDR.  So on the average one would expect any Democratic nominee to do worse than he did.

Q may underpoll Hispanics, a voting bloc that has recently sealed elections for Democrats in Colorado.

Note that this poll is after the terrorist attacks in Paris, and Republicans typically gain in polls in a climate in which fear of terror is intensified -- even if the Republicans have bumbled into it or the Democrats are blameless.

Republicans win the Presidency in 2016 if they can make national security the focus.  

The gun violence issue is just as important as terrorism.  Look what happened in Colorado.  JEB is the only one that can win in Colorado and he isnt going to be on ballot.

The attack on the Planned parenthood office/clinic in Colorado Springs looks like (pending a full legal investigation and an adjudication of any criminal case) an act of terrorism in itself.

[pbrower2a]

When  I spoke of terrorism as a political advantage for Republicans, I spoke only of terrorism with an international flavor. Lone-nut terrorism (and Robert Dear seems as nutty as they get) shows what is wrong with our lax gun laws and inadequate treatment of mental illness.

[pbrower2a]

When  I spoke of terrorism as a political advantage for Republicans, I spoke only of terrorism with an international flavor. Lone-nut terrorism (and Robert Dear seems as nutty as they get) shows what is wrong with our lax gun laws and inadequate treatment of mental illness.

How about lone-nut terrorism perpetrated by home grown Muslims?

Do we really care what the religious beliefs of Robert Dear (Colorado Springs, Colorado) or Dylann Roof (Charleston, South Carolina) are?

The San Bernardino atrocity is another instance of workplace violence more than anything else. He went after supervisors first, indicating that something was very wrong in his relationship with management.

People of many faiths have committed horrible acts of terrorism. Mental illness, personal revenge, and racial bigotry (Nazi-style antisemitism is typically racist in origin and practice) seem more  problematic than any religious heritage.

Mainstream Islam clearly and unequivocally opposes murderous outrages. To be sure, ISIS, Boko Haram, and al-Qaeda are not mainstream Islam any more than Nazi or KKK butchery  is part of mainstream Christianity.

I am sure that the personnel files of the male shooter will be under close investigation. What I see so far is evidence of a very troubled person.

Let's not be hypocritical. The worst act of terrorism in recent American history was committed by someone brought up as a Christian and never was accused of formally abandoning Christianity.  We can't blame Roman Catholicism for Timothy McVeigh, can we?