About that IA Quinnipiac Poll – Update

12 Comments

1. 

   Marie3 on September 10, 2015 at 11:33 pm

   One candidate has found a “neat” end run around those pesky regulations — Salon: Corruption in plain sight: The barely visible line between Carly Fiorina’s campaign and her super PAC

   …
   CARLY for America used to be called “Carly for America,” but earlier this year the Federal Election Commission told them that it was illegal for the group to use Carly’s name in its own name. The solution they came up with was to change “Carly” to “CARLY,” which is a backronym for “Conservative, Authentic, Responsive Leadership for You.” So they’re not using her name, they’re just using a word that has the same letters arranged in the same order as her name. And the FEC seems to be okay with that because, again, our campaign finance laws are loophole-ridden and barely enforceable.
   …
   National Journal’s Emma Roller has an excellent report on how Carly Fiorina’s “campaign” is actually CARLY for America showing up and doing all the campaign stuff.

   At a typical Fiorina campaign stop, a CARLY For America staffer was stationed at a table outside of the event space to sign up attendees for the super PAC’s email list. Another staffer handed out CARLY For America stickers to attendees as they arrived. When Fiorina and her staff entered the event, they were usually met by a room covered in red “CARLY” signs and tables covered in pro-Fiorina literature, all produced by CARLY For America.

   Has anyone told Rick Perry that all he had to do to pay his SC staffers is to have his SuperPac hire them?

   The FEC should seriously bust Fiorina for major campaign funding/spending violations.  It’s not as if there are all that many in force nor are they difficult to comply with.

   • 

     centerfielddj on September 12, 2015 at 11:48 pm

     If the FEC’s inability to act in response to the many transparent episodes of blatant coordination between SuperPACs and candidate campaigns doesn’t cause the majority of SCOTUS judges to reconsider their Citizens United ruling, I don’t know what would. I have particular disgust for Judge Kennedy’s statement for the majority in that case, where he claimed that yanking $ limits on independent expenditures would not create corruption or the appearance of corruption. Look at this part of the ruling:

     “The majority opinion argued for the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions, saying that (quoting from Kennedy’s statement),

     …prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “in the pocket” of so-called moneyed interests…This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

     “

     Unfortunately, the ruling did not require the naming of these sources of contributions for SuperPAC-type campaigning. Shareholders and the electorate have notoriously and routinely been denied the names of campaign contributors, and thus the ability to make informed decisions. I say “unfortunately…”, when the truth might be closer to “by design…”.

     If this defined level of accountability was the condition that the Citizens United majority held would be sufficient to prevent corruption or the appearance of same, then it is appalling that the majority did not draw into its ruling a requirement that donors are disclosed.

     It’s as if the Justices in the Citizens United majority don’t really care about this corruption.

     • 

       Marie3 on September 13, 2015 at 12:36 am

       Not “as if the Justices don’t care about this corruption, they believe “democracy” of, by, and for the wealthy and their lapdogs works better.

       Haven’t heard of any case wending it’s way through the courts that challenges CU.  Until or unless that happens, SCOTUS isn’t in a position to reconsider the decision.  Finding such a case would be extremely difficult because the case they ruled on was constructed by the conservative wing of the court and bears little resemblance to the one that they agreed to hear.

       Not sure any further regulations could temper the decision.  Looks to me as if the only recourse would be a constitutional amendment.

       Super PACS do report their donors.  The problem is that they can receive donations from non-profit operations and those non-profits don’t disclose their donors.  

       • 

         centerfielddj on September 13, 2015 at 1:13 am

         Not only will the five Justices in the Citizens United majority not abandon the ruling even though a chief rhetorical substantiation for their ruling has been trampled upon, the same Justices formed the majority in the more recent McCutcheon v. FEC, which repeals additional campaign finance laws:

         http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-decision-explained-more-money-pour-politi
         cal-process

         I love this portion of Public Integrity’s summary, which describes differences between McCutcheon and Citizens:

         “Citizens United, along with a lower court ruling, allowed for unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals to go to super PACs and nonprofits, which, in turn, could spend the money on ads blasting or praising candidates. That’s not considered a corrupting influence because these groups are banned from coordinating their spending with candidates.“

         “Banned” is a pretty hilarious claim, given transparently corrupt scenes like the Fiorina coordination you share here.

         Your last paragraph seems like a clarification which is identical in its effect to my description of the ability of SuperPAC contributors to remain anonymous. This reporting of a Federal appeals court decision shows the existence of this anonymity post-CU:

         http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/05/17/appeals-court-revokes-political-campaign-donor-secrecy/

         I’m unsure of the current status of this case.

         • 

           Marie3 on September 13, 2015 at 2:27 am

           That non-coordination rule was instantly a joke.  However, Fiorina is smashing the other line that didn’t seem written in sand that for all but public advocacy for the policies of a candidate, campaign activities were to be easily differentiated from those of Super PACs.  She’s the first one to have Super PAC funded and organized activities on the campaign trail that appear to be a campaign operation.  She probably doesn’t have much of an authentic campaign operation because as 6/30 she had only raised $1.7 million and had less than $1 million cash on hand.  Her Super PAC had $3.5 million raised from a handful of donors (including half a million from Ted Cruz’ super pac).  Just noticed that Charlie’s on this (and he says most everything better than I can:

           …
           Anyway, down at the Federal Election Commission, somebody came out of their klonopin coma long enough to notice that Fiorina’s SuperPac was called “Carly For America.” This person also noticed that Fiorina’s campaign seemed to be doing no actual campaigning, but that the SuperPac was doing a lot of the nuts-and-bolts that a campaign usually does. Hey, said the person from the FEC, this doesn’t look right, speaking softly so as not to awaken the other watchdogs.
           …

           It was Fior­ina’s birth­day on Sunday, and at a cam­paign stop in New Hamp­shire she was presen­ted with a birth­day cake. The cake was dec­or­ated not with her cam­paign’s logo, but the su­per PAC’s logo. At a Labor Day parade the next day, a video sent out by Fior­ina’s of­fi­cial Twit­ter ac­count shows the can­did­ate walk­ing down the street, sur­roun­ded by sup­port­ers in CARLY T-shirts, wav­ing CARLY signs. There was no vis­ible cam­paign swag from Fior­ina’s pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, so a cas­u­al ob­serv­er could reas­on­ably as­sume that the paraphernalia was com­ing from the cam­paign it­self. Sarah Is­gur Flores, Fior­ina’s deputy cam­paign man­ager, ac­know­ledged that the cam­paign does not do as much mer­chand­ising at events as CARLY For Amer­ica does, but said the su­per PAC’s ad­vance work does not con­sti­tute an in-kind con­tri­bu­tion be­cause it is not co­ordin­at­ing with the cam­paign.

           And we’re supposed to believe this nonsense. It’s our new responsibility as citizens to accept the fact that our politics are mere dumbshow for an increasingly irrelevant audience. Gullibility is the new civic duty. The actual power of self-government has been leached away into fewer and fewer hands while we sit back at home and enjoy the show, committing democratic suicide by acronym.

2. 

   Marie3 on September 12, 2015 at 1:46 am

   The latest pivot from Ms. Inevitable:

   Hillary Clinton confessed Thursday to something liberals have long suspected: being a moderate Democrat.

   “You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center,” Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. “I plead guilty.”

   The line is new for Clinton, who spent a large portion of her early campaign casting herself as a liberal fighter who has been progressive for her entire life. To many on the left, those lines never really rang true.

   “I take a backseat to no one,” Clinton told a New Hampshire audience in July, “When you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values.”

   And her team has a problem understanding her low ratings for trust and honesty?

   What’s amusing about this is the low quality of their poll testing.  Something like 80% of Americans self-identify as “middle class” and “moderate.”  Nice sounding words without definition that don’t drive voter behavior.

   A higher percentage of men aren’t going to like her better because she now claims to be “moderate — center” instead of liberal.  More younger and low income voters aren’t going to get warm fuzzies from “moderate — center” either.

   Now maybe she’s opened her general election campaign and expects that independents and some Republicans would be more inclined to favor a “moderate — center” Democrat than a liberal.  Odd that Bill and Barack didn’t win with that self-representation.  (Okay, they weren’t as honest as Hillary was yesterday, but … it was probably too much to expect us to get fooled again.)

   Or maybe her team has figured out that she’s lost the liberal wing and she needs to nail down the conservadems and mushy middle Democrats.  

   Her logo needs to be revised — remove the arrow because other than her aspirations to be POTUS, she doesn’t plan to take this country anywhere.  Just a big fat H should suffice.

3. 

   Marie3 on September 12, 2015 at 2:39 am

   9/11/15 poll release date.

   A few observations.  

   Slightly more support for Perry (oops) and Paul among younger voters.  Slightly more support for Carson, Cruz, Trump,and Walker among older voters.

   Changes from the most recent NBC poll:  Cruz up five points to 9%.  Walker down two points to 3%.  Kasich up three to 5%.  Jindal down two to 2%.  Christie down one to 1%.

   Women prefer Bush (9% to 3%) and men prefer Trump (32% to 22%)  Men also prefer (by 3%) Cruz and Kasich.  Women, by 3%, prefer Carson and Huckabee.

   40+% unfavorable: Bush, Graham, Paul, and Christie.

   Trump voters second choice: 30% Carson; 11% Cruz; Bush 8%, Fiorina and Rubio 7%,  

   • 

     Marie3 on September 12, 2015 at 11:02 pm

     This is curious — LATimes Walker abruptly cancels California GOP speech …

     Not just a speech, but the headline speaker at the CA GOP Convention.  Scheduled for next Friday, two days after the Simi Valley GOPalooza debate and about 70 miles SE.  

     A Walker spokeswoman said the candidate’s schedule changed and he would now be spending the weekend in Iowa and South Carolina.

     Apparently couldn’t arrange anything in NV (the caucus in between NH and SC primaries) to fill in between the debate and CA GOP Convention.  Or even get an opening in Las Vegas to kiss Adelson’s ring.

     • 

       centerfielddj on September 12, 2015 at 11:53 pm

       I dislike no candidate in the 2016 POTUS campaign more than Scott Walker. His ideology is repellent, and his personal character is the worst, even among the GOP demagogues.

       • 

         Marie3 on September 13, 2015 at 12:24 am

         I try not to personalize the candidates in either party.  The only major thing that differentiates Walker from the others is that he has been somewhat more effective in delivering the ALEC agenda to a state.  But all of them stand for the same repellent policies.  

   • 

     Marie3 on September 13, 2015 at 10:22 pm

     The Guardian Iowa Tailgate Stump

     The 19-year-old who described himself as a Republican felt confident that Trump’s financial success meant he had the solutions to run the United States. “He’s a billionaire. Are you?” the freshman college student asked. He added: “If you’re a billionaire he knows what he’s doing.”

     Did this guy fall off a turnip truck?

     Few seemed too concerned about Trump’s history of divisive comments. As Josh Hilbert of Corwirth, Iowa told the Guardian: “Trump pisses 40% of the people off but 60% thinks he’s a fucking badass.”

     Oh, jeez.  What a dope.

     Scott Walker played cornhole but dodged questions.

     Rubio had attended early and not only didn’t play cornhole but alienated a couple of attendees when his entourage walked through their game.
     …
     The Kentucky senator eventually left grumbling – he had already pressed the flesh enough and he kept on getting questions from a mixture of journalists and activists. “I don’t think we need to do an interview with everybody who thinks they are a journalist,” he told a campaign aide as they walked off to their next stop.

     All in all another good day for Trump.

      

4. 

   Marie3 on September 13, 2015 at 1:37 pm

   CBS/YouGov IA, NH, SC polls.

   IA: Clinton 33%, Sanders 43%, Biden 10%
   NH: Clinton 30%, Sanders 52%, Biden 9%
   SC: Clinton 46%, Sanders 23%, Biden 22%

   Outlier as to absolute support but consistent with the trends of the other recent polls.