The Skeptical Environmentalist Takes the Temperature of the Paris Climate Change Accord

In the past few years, left leaning leaders from around the globe have been keen to tackle climate change.  Pope Francis wrote a bull Laudato Si urging world leaders to come to terms together in the Paris Climate Change Agreement.    They sought to sign the Paris Climate Change Agreement with great fanfare, but on the eve of the Summit, the multiple Paris attacks occurred drawing attention away from the achievement. 

Now that it has come time to implement the Paris Climate Change Agreement, skeptical environmentalists question the efficaciousness of the accord.  But dissent is not something that progressive politicans or the press can fathom.Senator Ted Cruz stumped Sierra Club President Aaron Mair in testimony to account for Climate Change considering the 17 year lull in warming. 

 French Mathematicians were deemed to be dolts when then point out the absurd cost of prospective compliance with COP 21 promises. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, accepts the fact the global temperatures are rising but postulates that the Paris Accords are more about Climate Aid than really solving the problem of Climate Change. 

Science is supposed to be about facts and informed inquiry.  But that is not how Climate Change advocates evangelize as they attack apostates who question if it is settled science.   Sean Penn has suggested shaming Climate Change deniers .  A French weatherman was pulled off the air for not spouting the liberal party line about climate change.

In a quixotic attempt to engage progressives who profess the secular religion of Climate Change, Bjorn Lomborg made a video in conjunction with Prager University to illustrate the absurdity of COP 21 promises and solving the anthropogenic climate change problem

Sadly, those steeped in Climate Change politics are reluctant to engage in cost benefit analysis much less critical appraisals of the proposals, as they implore that "something must be done" and will hear nothing else.

The Legacy of Dirty Harry and the Reid Rule on Senate Filibusters

A legacy of former Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid (D-NV) was the effective elimination of the confirmation filibuster.  

Under the Constitution, it is the Senate's duty to confirm Executive and Judicial Branch appointments.  Senate rules allowed for confirmations with mere majorities, but needed to obtain 60 votes to cut off debate (Cloture) and preclude a filibuster.  The Cloture vote was intended to prevent endless obstructionism while still giving the minority some say in the proceedings of the Upper Chamber of Congress.

Needing to get enough votes for cloture was an incentive for Republicans to select more moderate appointees which required Senate consent.  But such Senate niceties stopped political steamrolling by Majorities who wished to exercise their unadulterated will.

When the Obama Administration sought to pack the Court of Appeals for DC (aka the DC Circuit), which is the court of authority for regulatory bodies, it ran into trouble when its candidates might not have received the requisite support for a Cloture Vote.  So then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, exercised "The Nuclear Option".  Exercising the Nuclear Option had been hotly debated in the preceding decade, but then Senate Majority Leader  Bill Frist (R-TN) opted not to circumvent tradition. 

Through Parliamentary legerdemain, Reid established a precedent in which he said that all judicial nominees, save Justices of the Supreme Court, would be considered on majority votes and did not have to pass the Cloture Vote threshold.  

The Reid Rule was great when one's party is in control of the Senate and the White House. But in 2017, President Donald Trump will occupy the White House and Republicans have a two seat majority in the Senate.  Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks that he can stymie the Trump Administration through the advice and consent clause as well as any Supreme Court nominations which do not represent progressive Democrat values.  However, Schumer may well rue the Reid rule legacy from Dirty Harry Reid. 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt had an informative colloquy on the Reid Rule.

 Republicans may not moderate their choices for positions which need to be confirmed by the Senate.  Despite Harry Reid's contention that the "Reid Rule" excludes Supreme Court nominees, it is contented that avoiding Cloture for a Supreme Court nomination would simply be a second application of the Reid Rule precedent.

Supreme Reflections on the First Monday in October

The Supreme Court will start consideration of cases in its new term on the first Monday in October.  A Federalist Society panel previewing the Supreme Court's new term expected that SCOTUS will have a diminished case-load during the 2016-2017 term as it awaits confirmation of  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement. It  is assumed that the Supreme Court is avoiding some controversial cases to avoid having a 4-4 tie, which does not establish precedent and upholds the Appeals Court ruling.

There are several schools of thought concerning the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  If Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wins the election but if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, there is good reason to believe that Obama designee Merrick Garland will be confirmed during the Lame Duck session.  Although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claims that Lame Duck sessions are not appropriate for SCOTUS confirmations, the thinking from the GOP may well be to go with the Devil they know rather than one which they don't know.

Some Democrats believe if they win both the White House and the Senate, then Hillary would want to install her own (presumably more progressive pick).  But some optimistic institutionalists hold fast to the notion that Mrs. Clinton would abide by the process and still push forward her predecessor's choice.  Either way, in such a scenario, it would be expected that there would be a lengthy evaluation and vetting process to achieve Senatorial Advice and Consent, thus keeping the evenly divided court well into the term.

Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy

A more philosophical question is what should be the role of the Supreme Court.  A common rallying cry in Presidential elections is control of the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia's passing in February levels an ideologically fractured SCOTUS (four liberals, three conservatives and Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy), but with indications that progressives are itching to be more activist. 

Chelsea Clinton has mentioned on the hustings that openings the Supreme Court will allow her mother to fundamentally redefine the parameters of the Second Amendment.  

Most likely there would be no outright repeal of this fundamental freedom given by God, but it would take a narrow reading of the organic law and assert that this right is limited to organized militias. This would effectively make it a dead letter, like the Tenth Amendment.

So instead of being final arbiters of cases, the Supreme Court would act like a super-legislature, only they are unelected (thus unaccountable) and there is virtually no way to upend their ukases.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) while campaigning for President proposed having retention elections for the judiciary, as they do in Iowa.  That sounds more appealing on the campaign trail then it would be applicable in the Federal City. However, it does voice the frustration of many Americans who feel cut out of the governing process.  California twice approved referendums defining marriage (which was primarily a state issue), yet in Obergefell, the Supreme Court overturned the will of voters under a Right of Dignity interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and then expanded this right of same-sex marriage to all 50 states.

Two longer shot prospects not considered by judicial watchers are the possibility that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) might win and actually live by his promise to nominate conservative judicial candidates.  

The other way to remedy judicial tyranny would be limitations on Article III power.  While Congress can theoretically reign in lower courts, it is unlikely to do so. This would leave such reformation to application of an Article V Convention of States.  While the Article V safety valve for a Convention of States has been in place for 227 years, it has never been successfully invoked yet. But as more and more power is taken away from states yet they are saddled with the brunt of implementing dictates from the District of Calamity (sic), this may become a more feasible possibility. 

Weighing Why Scott Walker Enthusiastically Endorsed Ted Cruz

A week before the crucial Republican Wisconsin primary, Governor Scott Walker called into WTMJ AM's Charlie Sykes program to endorse Senator Ted Cruz for President.

Wisconsin is important in the GOP primary process, as it is a winner-take-all state at a time in which Donald Trump needs to convincingly win delegates to lock up the Republican nomination.  If Trump fails to win in the Badger State, it is increasingly likely that the GOP will have a contested convention in Cleveland.

Governor Walker withdrew from the 2016 Republican Presidential field in September 2015, well before any ballots were cast. This may be attributable to running a prematurely bloated campaign, lackluster debate performances and wanting to clear the field so Republicans could elect a conservative. Walker obviously had animus against Donald Trump's campaign, as Walker lamented how the 2016 campaign had devolved into personal attacks.

However, Governor Walker's full throated endorsement of Cruz for President is noteworthy for his commitment.  Walker is a youthful politician with a bright future.  And there are no term limits for  Cheesehead Governors. Walker won three gubernatorial elections in four years (including the 2012 recall election).  If Walker endorsement translates to a resounding victory for Cruz in the Wisconsin primary, Walker vaults back into the 2016 GOP Election cycle.  

If Walker's endorsement is seen as turning point in the primaries, Walker would be a hero to conservatives by preventing an unprincipled populist enough delegates for a first ballot nomination victory.  If Cruz is able to win the nomination (even in a contested convention second ballot), Walker can be seen as Kingmaker and Cruz may feel compelled to reward him as a running mate, along with his virtues of geographical balance, outsider appeal and reputation to fight progressives (along with his sizable donors list). It is akin to Florida in 2008 when former Governor Charlie Crist (FL- R-I-D) late endorsement of Senator John McCain vaulting his prospects, without the orange tan and RINO tendencies. 

But in the event that the GOP Cleveland Convention becomes deadlocked, Walker becomes an attractive alternative choice. Walker could appeal to evangelicals, conservatives, populists, angry "Reagan Democrats".  Walker can rightly claim that he is an outsider, with a track record of accomplishments and who has fought political correctness and unions and won. Walker dropped out because of needless name calling, so he has not alienated large segments of the party. 

On Earned Media and Enabling

Campaigns must be able to spread the word about their campaigns when doing wholesale politics.  Thus campaigns must either buy media spots (paid media) or generate free media coverage (earned media).  This may be accomplished from  a spectacular campaign event, an unusual comment which is considered "newsworthy" or from media hits.

The 2016 Republican field has used different media strategies to varying effect. For example, former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) and his independent (but sympathetic) Right to Rise Super-PAC gathered a huge war chest to sway voters.  The Jeb! strategy was to earn legitimacy in Republican voters eyes by amassing a cornucopia of endorsements and shape the field by flooding the airways with paid media.

Obviously, this strategy did not work out well for the Bush scion.  Pointing to a score of retired generals who endorsed Jeb did not prove to have much sway.  Some of the name endorsements, like former Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) really seemed dated.  And Jeb bringing out his mother and former President brother in South Carolina smacked of desperation. This was too little too late and did not generate significant (or particularly positive) earned media

More telling was the money that Jeb and the Right to Rise Super-PAC burned through tens of millions of dollars on paid media.  The Jeb campaign and Right to Rise  flooded the airwaves in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina but Bush fell in towards the back of the pack and suspended his campaign early in the voting.

The Washington Post published a telling graphic to illustrate the cost benefit of Republican Primary campaigns on paid media and actual votes.

The only campaign which spent more per vote than Jeb Bush did is Dr. Ben Carson. But as Carson Campaign's Business Manager (tellingly NOT a Campaign Manager) Armstrong Williams knows, branding can be quite expensive.  But it can also be lucrative for those charged with placing the ads.  Bush confidant Mike Murphy worked at the Jeb oriented Right to Rise Super-PAC but reportedly earned $14 million for buying the earned media.  Nice job if you can get it.

On the other end of the campaign publicity spectrum,  there is earned media.  Capitalizing on earned media has been one of the keys of Donald Trump's current success in the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary race.  Donald Trump has been a master creating controversy to keep the spotlight focused on him and earning lots of earned media. During the summer of 2015, Trump received saturation media coverage by the networks.   Trump's experience doing reality television already established name recognition and a branding of successful businessman in the eyes of many non-political low information voters.  By saying outrageous things and constantly attacking opponents who threaten his perch, Trump generates tons of earned media.

Another characteristic of the 2016 Trump campaign is a persistent attack on the media. Trump complains seemingly whenever a media organization reports something critical.  Trump will label them nasty, unfair or stupid.  Trump has gone so far to eject credentialed media with whom Trump does not like the line of their questions.

Trump has a trend of disparaging journalists who challenge him, from benign interviews with Katy Tor to hostile news conference exchanges with Jorge Ramos.  Most famously, Donald Trump launched myriad mysogenic slurs against Megyn Kelly, a Fox News anchor who questioned how Trump treated women. Several months later, Trump claimed that he was boycotting Fox News debates because of Megyn Kelly's inclusion, but later relented when Trump discovered that missing debates could hurt him amongst the electorate. To be fair, it might also have been a Trump technique of truthful hyperbole to further self promotion.

The attack dog mentality plays well for the angry electorate but Trump's tirades against Fox News seem somewhat counter-intuitive. Fox News has long been considered the major media outlet most friendly to Republican voices. Despite what Trump-eteers trumpet on social media, much of Fox News is friendly towards Donald Trump.  Trump has long done weekly call ins with Fox & Friends.  Judge Janine Pirro has a longstanding friendship with Trump and has formally endorsed him.  In addition, Sean Hannity is a personal friend, as is Bill O'Reilly.  Both are happy to give the Manhattan mogul airtime, but these shows do not necessarily endorse the candidate, although O'Reilly was obsequious in begging Trump to participate in debates (even promising to take milkshakes off the ledger).

So why does Trump peseverate on complaining about Fox News? The answer may be several fold. Trump loves positive news stories about himself. Despite all of the earned media, news hooks and friendly airtime through the auspices of Fox News, Trump has not won over Megyn Kelly thus he feels justified to rail against Fox.  Cynically, Trump might deduce that attacking Trump may appeal to his "silent majority" of blue collar (Reagan) Democrats that are poised to support a populist like Trump but their perspectives have been poisoned by constant Democrat lambasting of Fox News.  From a Machiavellian mode, by intimidating a strong opponent, it sends a bully message to the rest of the media and harbors a hint that they might lose access if they do not say nice things about Trump.

For running a comparatively shoe-string budget campaign, Trump has done well trading on celebrity, controversy and earned media access.  Cable channels love to run with Trump quips because they attract eyeballs and create controversy, which improves ratings. Trump tends to speak unscripted, so you never know what he is going to say.  As many campaign rallies have been at large venues, live media coverage can be justified as being newsworthy. Trump is not shy about doing interviews with those he can rely upon not to be hostile interviews, so he gets lots of airtime.

It is a curiosity that progressive channels like MSNBC and CNN have also been Trump obsessed. Is it because it is newsworthy? Does it attract eyeballs? Or could it be media manipulation to help pick the Republican nominee who will be easiest for a progressive to beat? Enabling through earned media isn't always an endorsement.

Some might conclude that Trump is brilliant in leveraging earned media to his advantage in the 2016 Election. But glowing coverage and earned media can only get a candidate so far.  And those who live by the media can perish by the media.  Senator John McCain had such a chummy relationship with the media on his Straight Talk Express, but the media mob turned on him after he won the 2008 Republican nomination. NBC News has bought all of the footage from Selena Scott's BBC documentary on Donald Trump but is holding the damning information until after the convention. The Lamestream Media has not focused on some of the business connections of the real estate tycoon.

Unless the Republican electorate is convinced that it is a Trump landslide, it is difficult to see how an earned media oriented strategy works to appeal in nine separate primary races during the so called SEC primary on March 1st.  Then on March 15th, there are several big winner take all states in Florida, Ohio and Illinois which have many media markets and are not built for quick barnstorming campaigns.

But Trump is not the only seriously competitive candidate in the Republican nomination race.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) campaign relies heavily on endorsements and paid media.  Rubio and his independent (but aligned) Conservative Solutions Super-PAC had amassed a vast war chest.  Moreover, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and his four independent (but aligned) Keep the Promise Super-PACs have raised lots of money and have been have resisted the temptation to blow the war chest early.  This paid media, combined with strategic earned media news hooks and organized Get Out the Vote drives, could deflate the Trump balloon.

Trump is short on specifics but loves to taut his poll ratings and his greatness on media availability, might not look as promising for earned media if the so called Trump Train is slowed down.  For example, Donald Trump accepted his second place finish in the Iowa Caucus' gracefully and did not use social media much the next day.  Consequently, Trump disappeared from the media spotlight.  The next day, Trump cranked up the smear machine questioning Cruz's eligibility and other outrageous claims that Carson had votes stolen from him during the Iowa Caucus.  That media circus strategy works well  for Trump when everyone is concentrating on the next state.  But when there are many simultaneous contests in diverse regions, that might not be a successful strategy, especially if the media (or the establishment) has anointed the new "golden boy" for saturation coverage.

Looking forward to the General Election, once the Republican nomination is decided, even friendly foils in the media become fierce foes. This is to maintain impartiality, to create controversy to become newsworthy and often reflects the liberal Lamesteam Media bias.  If a candidate is overly reliant on earned media from chaos campaigning and chummy Manhattan media ties, it could endanger the viability of such a candidacy. Oppo research leaks to the media about a candidate's shortcomings (or even silly stuff like crating a dog on top of a station wagon for a summer vacation) can dominate the media landscape and besmirch the reputation of a former media darling. While such jaundiced journalism would not alienate the hardened core of Trump supporters, it would bolster the ceiling of popularity and drive the debate to terra incognita. 

Parsing Political Polling

In the 2016 Election Cycle, the Republican Presidential Primary has been driven by plethora of political polls.  In fact, Donald Trump regularly trumpets his lead in “all the polls”.  Yet Trump was surprised when he underperformed in the Iowa Caucuses, which has prompted bizarre tangents that the Manhattan Mogul really should have won the contest.

To try to educate enthusiastic but unsophisticated political partisans, here are some things to look for when considering  the merits of polls.

Internet polls are unreliable.  If this were not the case, former Representative RON Paul (R-TX 14th & 22nd) would have been the GOP nominee in 2008 and 2012 based on Internet Polling.  There is no sampling, nor fail-safe ways to prevent over-voting.  Internet polls do give an indication of social media enthusiasm, but this can be gamed and is not indicative of real grassroots support.

For the primaries, national polls are misleading as they mainly give a gauge of name recognition. If a candidate is well known, such as Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for the Democrats or Donald Trump competing in the Republican primaries, national polls can seem skewed towards them.

Given this reality, such candidates may craft their message to be one of inevitability.  This pitch can be a perception that the nomination process is a coronation or that the leader in the national polls will sweep the table.

There are some sources, such as Real Clear Politics, which will combine polls to give a national average. This can give some indication about movements by candidates, but since this merges different methodologies, it is dangerous to rely upon the specific numbers.

 In our system, however, states hold primaries.  These states have different primary electorates, and often vote on different dates  so candidates’ messages are often tailored to appeal (perhaps pandering) to particular audiences.  For example, Ohio Governor John Kasich started to drop his “n”s in  and be downhome in evangelical appeal at the last South Carolina primary. Sometimes this strategy works, but it can come off as unctuous and inauthentic.

While state polls can be more illuminating, there are still lots of details one must discern in the cross tabs.  Most casual consumers of campaign news only listen for the top line results, either the pecking order or the purported percentage of support.  The crosstabs involve the margin of error.

For example, this CBS GOP bar graph for the South Carolina polling has a Margin of Error (MOE) of 5.7%.   A useful rule of thumb is that ANY poll with a Margin of Error of more than 5% is practically meaningless.   In this instance, Senator Ted Cruz could have  25.7% support or as little as 14.3%. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) could vault into second with up to 20.7% or drop into a tie for fourth place at 9.3%.  That large range makes most of the pecking order suspect.

Then there is the question of who makes up the body of those who are polled.  Asking any American is dubious for primaries as most of those contests are closed. So if a poll’s sample is skewed 80% Democrats for a Republican primary, the results will be apple-sauce.  A slightly more reliable class is registered voters, but without separating party affiliation, this will still be suspect.  The gold standard is likely voters for a given party.

In order to find a pool of likely voters, pollsters will ask vetting questions to ensure that the surveyed voter has cast ballots in several past elections.  This takes time and costs the pollster money, but is much more reliable than something like an internet poll with trolls clicking out of their parents’ basement.

Polling is both an art and a science.  The pollster needs to predict what is the right turnout model for an election.  Grassroots Republicans are more likely to turn out in off-year elections.  There were extraordinary turnouts of new voters and African American voters who turned out for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.  Will the same numbers of voters return in elections where Mr. Obama is not standing?  It can be a major mistake for pollsters to use the wrong model when predicting elections

Determining the right sample is imperative and may explain the disparity between the polls and the Iowa Caucus results.  Prior to the Hawkeye Cauci, it was postulated that Trump needed to turn out a large swell of new participants to the caucus.  The Trump campaign did not concentrate on Get Out the Vote efforts.  Nevertheless, there was a large contingent of “new voters”, but the new voters were disinclined to support Trump.

Public polls are only news if a news source determines that it is fit to print and advances their narrative.  Some news sources have sat on poll results which do not augment their desired narrative, or they will bury them with Friday afternoon releases or on the back pages.

It used to be Gallup that was the standard, but they seemingly have bowed out of election polls. But not every polling company is the same For instance, Public Policy Polling tends to be a Democrat operation. So their results may be crafted to make mischief for Republicans or have flawed methodology.

The manner which a prospective pollee is contacted may influence the results.  It used to be that telephone polling was pretty reliable. However, now that many households have dropped land-lines, results including cell-phone callers can be questionable.  When you call also matters. If pollsters will reach fewer Republicans at home during weekends, which may adversely affect the numbers. There is some thought that people are more likely to tell pollsters that they support Trump if it is an automated call rather than person to person.

Robo-call polls are not really meant to measure support for an election field but are the cover for push polling.  In puah polla, if a voter indicates that they like candidate X, they may be told adverse information meant to dampen support for that candidate. Trump has been complaining about Cruz’s robo calls about Trump dropping out, but it seems like Trump is fulfilling that premise with insinuations that he might quit if the GOP does not treat him right.




Exit polls, which are conducted on election day, after a voter has casted his ballot, often are instructive in the eleventh hour.  These exit polls can be off the mark if there is too small of a sample, if the chosen precincts are not representative of the electorate and the reality of some voters will not tell the whole truth to their interviewers.  Exit polls give news organizations a heads up on probable election results before the polls close and facilitate in forecasting end of the evening winners. Aside from inquiring about the actual candidate, exit polls can be a barometer about what were the real hot button issues for voters and give the media something to talk about as the election returns start to come in.

It is unfortunate that in the 24/7 news cycle, many media sources will use horse race polls of dubious merit to fill their time and create excitement in the electorate.  This can create false expectations by those who just scan the headlines.

There are internal polls which are commissioned by campaigns.  These internal polls can give politicians a real reading of the electorate.  These internal polls can also be enlisted to hone a message to find out what are hot button issues or what is a better way to couch a policy proposal.  But these internal polls can also convey wishful thinking.  When a campaign leaks an internal poll, they may be giving credible alternative information ignored by the drive-by media.  Or it could be releasing agiprop to staunch waning support or to create a perception of a surge.

Instead of premising political support on the bandwagon effect, voters should make up their own minds
and not be framed by the primary polls.  The reality is that the only poll that counts is on Election Day.
If the eventual winner of the primaries is not one’s cup of tea, other metrics may be called for in the General Election.

One Day More to the Iowa Caucuses

One day more until the Iowa Caucuses.  It will be good to have voters start actually participating in the primary process rather than hype the horse-race based on sketchy scouting reports.

Donald Trump is the presumptive front-runner.  He is always anxious to point to the polls and his huuuge crowds. Trump scored a couple of prominent endorsers, including former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Jerry Falwell, Jr.  Trump was also aided by left handed compliments from current Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA), who is anxious to bolster ethanol mandates.

Trump eschewed the only Iowa debate supposedly because of a tiff with Fox News and Megyn Kelly.  But Trump’s post-debate excited utterances at how Trump was glad to have missed the pummeling questions may be an admission against interest.  Iowa voters expect to be courted and this cycle have remain undecided until the last minute.  Will the Manhattan mogul’s reticence towards Iowa retail politics hurt him in the caucuses or will it be another one of many things his fanatics will forgive him?

Time will tell if celebrity campaigning draws in many first time caucus goers.  In the 2012 cycle, only 125,000 people parcipated in the GOP Iowa Caucus.  Patrick Murphy, the director of Mamouth University’s Polling Institute, opined: Trump’s victory hinges on having a high number of self-motivated, lone wolf caucus-goers show up Monday night.”.  Add in the factor that many Trump-eteers are non-traditional first time caucus goers who have to be trained, motivated and ripe to turn out in Iowa, not just through social media or at a rally. If 150,000 or more Republicans actually participate (rather than just register) in this year’s Hawkeye Cauci, then it will be a good night for Trump.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) established an excellent ground game in Iowa while making pointed appeals to evangelical voters and Tea Party types (under the banner of being a consistent  Conservative).  Cruz claims to have 12,000 volunteers in Iowa.  Even political operatives who do not support Cruz, such as Alex Castellanos, concede that Cruz has established a formidable social media operation.

Organization is key to driving caucus goers to the polls.  Sometimes campaigns must literally drive their supporters there.  Also having representative to speak at each caucus   To aid in the retail campaigning, they rented college former dormitories and dubbed them “Camp Cruz” to house hundreds of door knocking volunteers. There has been some controversy over an 11th hour targeted voter mailer from the Cruz campaign which was intended to shame people into caucusing. Cruz dismisses such complaints claiming that the mailer was routine and he favored using every tool to get voters out to the Iowa Caucuses 

Rather than pander to Iowa voters, Cruz advocated the elimination of ethanol mandates, and compromised by phasing them out over five years.  But Cruz’ opponents and those supporting the ethanol lobby labeled that a “flip-flop”.

Cruz did score some significant endorsements for Iowans, including Tea Party favorite  Representative Steve King (R-IA 4th), former Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), evangelical leaders Bob van der Plaats, and Tony Perkins, Duck Dynasty Commander Phil Robertson and radio personality Glenn Beck.

Cruz has barnstormed the Hawkeye State.  By the time the caucuses start, Cruz claims that he will have done the full Grassley (referring to Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley) by having events in all 99 Iowa counties.  This type of retail politics was rewarded in 2012, when former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) won a narrow victory against former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA). The Cruz campaign has also outreached to twice the number of likely caucus-goers than Trump.

However, since Cruz rose towards the top of the Iowa polls in mid-December, he has been targeted by Trump over dubious “birther” (and now even “anchor baby”) attacks.  Of late, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has been joining the fray to claim that Cruz is running a “disingenuous” campaign.  This has lead some political observers to conclude that Cruz peaked too early.

As the Iowa Caucuses approached, Cruz closed warning crowd of the dangers of voting for Trump and jabbed at Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).  This may evidence a lack of confidence of decisively winning the Iowa Caucuses as planned.  However, weather forecasts project a major snowstorm starting just before the Caucus begin.  While Haweyes are heartier than denizens in the District of Calamity, a lower turnout may be the key to victory for Cruz, as his organization gets dedicated supporters to turn out on a snowy February evening.

Senator Marco Rubio has been coming on strong in Iowa, seemingly from good debate performances and wholesale politics via the airwaves. The Rubio campaign bet on de-emphasizing boots on the ground campaigning.  In fact, Rubio deputy campaign manager Rich Beeson proclaimed:  "The days of having to have 50 field staffers and 25 offices are done. We can have a field office and staff set up in a Starbucks with wireless and get just as much done as we can in a brick-and-mortar office with land lines." Perhaps. But does that compensate for the paucity of events in Iowa?

Rubio’s Super PAC ran half hour informercials on the Saturday night before the Caucuses on 12 TV stations in five media markets.  Will this work or just be noise as one flips channels on a Saturday night?

It would seem that Rubio is positioning himself for the third ticket out of Iowa, as the Caucuses tend to winnow the top tier winners from the campaign chaff. The strategy would be to frame the media story to be the Comeback Kid who comes out of no-where.

Iowa should have been the ideal launchpad for the Presidential aspiration of Dr. Ben Carson, as a Constitutional Conservative to appeal to Tea Partiers and a man of strong faith to appeal to evangelical voters, who make up 45% of Republican caucus goers.  But Dr. Carson’s campaign has precipitously receded since being in the number two chair for the early December GOP debate. For the Iowa Debate, Carson only was allotted six minutes.

The Carson campaign has been bleeding top advisors for the last month in the run up to the Iowa Caucuses. Carson himself has admitted that if he does not do well in Iowa or New Hampshire that he might have to do an agonizing reappraisal.  Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) campaign brags that they have 1,000 libertarian leaning collegiate supporters.  If they turn out to the Caucuses, that might help lift Paul’s campaign from the primary doldrums. But if Dr. Carson were to be edged out of fourth place in Iowa by a surprise surge from Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) or Senator Rand Paul , discernment time might come sooner.

As counter-programming to the Republican Debate which Donald Trump boycotted, he held an event to help veterans and wounded warriors, which raised $6 million for largess via the Donald J. Tump Foundation. Also appearing at the Trump for the Troops event were the two prior winners of the Iowa Caucuses former Sen. Rick Santorum (2012) and former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR). Both claimed that they wanted to support veterans but Santorum was more candid as he had nothing to do after participating in the under-card debate.

[L] Ex Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), [C] Donald Trump {R] Ex. Gov. Mike Huckabee

Cynics see auditions to a prospective Trump Administration thus they seem like vassals for The Donald. Is it telling that Donald Trump will give his post Iowa Caucus “winning” speech in Little Rock, Arkansas.

It will be interesting to see how Big Mo goes after the Iowa Caucuses.  Typically, the top three candidates get a rush of publicity and funding after Iowa.  But Big Mo does not always translate into winning the next contest, as New Hampshire primary voters are contrarian.  In the 2016 cycle, Trump is comfortably in the lead and Governor John Kasich (R-OH) is surging into second in the Granite State.

In this cycle, some campaigns have raised significant campaign contributions so they are unlikely to quickly fold after Iowa.  Former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) seems resigned to garner better showings after Iowa and New Hampshire and Jeb!'s campaign has the money to make it there.  Rubio’s campaign is well funded and can survive not winning in the Caucuses or the First in the Nation primary.  Cruz has been conservative in spending his large campaign coffers and will probably concentrate on South Carolina and the SEC primaries on March 1st.

With all of this attention on the Grand Old Party, it is easy to overlook the Democrats. It is expected that 140,000 Hawkeye Democrats will participate in the Caucus and they skew very white and liberal. It would not be surprising if Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist- VT) won both the Iowa and New Hampshire contests.  Pro arguendo, Sanders momentum combined with the maelstrom of the Clinton Email Scandal, might cause the Democrat establishment to scramble for substitutes instead of the Hillary coronation, akin to 2004 after the Dean scream.

The fun begins in earnest on February 1st.

Psephology and Plotting Paths to Primary Victory

When chatting with a friend who is not a political junkie, I questioned if Carly Fiorina’s strong Republican Debate performances can translate into strong showings in Iowa.  My friend questioned the value of the Iowa Caucuses, considering that televangelist Pat Robertson won. With the Iowa Caucuses just a 100 days away, it is worth considering the importance of the early contest and assessing paths to primary victory. 

This dialogue prompted me to review all Republican and Democrat Presidential Primary campaigns since 1976. The assertion that Pat Robertson won is an understandable misconception. He actually placed in second in 2000, thus proving that a campaign need not win in Iowa, but being in the top tier is important to survive the winnowing out.  In the case of Senator Fred Harris (D-OK) in 1976, a fourth place finish with 9.89% support had Harris proclaim that he was "winnowed in” the race. Iowa many not pick a winner, but it typically does thin the field out.

Favorite son candidates sometimes can do well in Iowa just because of their connection or proximity to the Hawkeye State.  Arguably, this was Rep. Dick Gephardt’s (D-MO 3rd) strategy in 1988.  Some thought that such connections would have similarly helped former Congresswoman  Michele Bachmann (R-MN 6th) or ex Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), but this pathway to success proved futile.  There was some speculation that in the 2016 cycle that Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) would have greatly aided by his native Iowan ties and being a next door neighbor, but that was not enough in the 2016 election cycle. 

Iowa and New Hampshire are important because they test a can test a candidates endurance, organization and strategy.  Because voters in the early primary states take their participation seriously, they expect to have lots of one-on-one encounters with hopefuls (retail politics). Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) won Iowa in 2012 on a shoestring budget because of a grassroots effort to have town halls in all 99 counties. 

What makes  the “Haweye Cauci” unique is the fact that Iowa voters take their participation seriously and expect to be courted by aspiring politicians.  Then there is the challenge of getting voters to show up at the Caucuses.  Not only must they be motivated to spend several hours on a snowy Iowa evening to play politics, but they must represent their candidate.  There are not private ballot boxes for Caucuses so Caucus goers must argue and advocate for their candidate. Thus a “silent majority” who acts according to their principles in the sanctity of the ballot box will not do.  They must go before their neighbors and plead their candidates’ cases.

Iowa Howard Dean campaigner 2004

But retail politics needs to be done right to accommodate for Iowa Stubborn.  In 2004, former Governor Howard Dean (D-VT) was the presumptive favorite as he had a large stash of cash from internet fundraising and could mobilize an army of college students to knock on doors. Well, Hawkeyes did not cotton to brigades of out of state whipper-snappers in bright red  ski hats prodding people to the caucuses.  Thus Dean was in a battle for third place.  To rally the troops after the Caucus results were announced, he did the infamous Howard Dean scream, which was the beginning of the end for him.


The Iowa contest may only sport 30 delegates split amongst the candidates, but doing well gives what 1980 GOP candidate (and later President)  George Herbert Walker Bush called “The Big Mo”.  Good publicity from being win place or show in Iowa can help for the next contest in New Hampshire. 



But where “the Big Mo”  really matters is in the “Invisible Primary” for donor dollars.  When primary voters start selecting candidates (as Iowans do not vote), traditionally financial supporters either open the floodgates or cut off the flow of funds.  People like to bet on winners and may jump on the bandwagon to curry favor with underdogs who outperform expectations. Some may claim that the “Invisible Primary” ends before selection process begins, because money in the bank allows for prudent allocation of resources. But sometimes candidates on the brink of financial collapse, like Senator John McCain in 2008 or Senator Rick Santorum’s shoestring start  in 2012, needed the infusion of finances and publicity after doing well (or significantly beating expectations) in Iowa.


Doing well in the donor primary makes a difference in expanding organization and financing media buys several weeks down the road to effectively compete in a series of contests held on the same day, like the SEC primaries (March 1st) or in a populous and diverse state in which wholesale politics is essential, like Florida (March 15th) 

In 2016, the GOP has rules that primaries before March 15th may have proportional distribution of delegates, after that time it is winner take all.  Party rules this cycle also require candidates to win six contests. Candidates need to find their pathway to victory.  

Some Republican candidates choose not to put as much emphasis on Iowa as it is not a reliable predictor of success and the agrarian and evangelical midwestern voters may not suit certain campaigns. The eastern and western edges of Iowa seem to vote for more urban and moderate candidates in GOP primaries while the center of the state can be characterized as quite evangelical and values voters. Santorum squeaked out a victory in 2012 with a campaign appealing to value voters and retail politics. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) beat Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) 30%-27% by winning with “very conservative” voters, many of whom were evangelical value voters.

The importance of Iowa was demonstrated by the quick reversal of a social media faux pas by Donald Trump.  The brash businessman has earned a reputation of raring for a fight and never backing down. While Mr. Trump has been top of the Republican polls for the last 100 days, but a recent poll showed that he dropped in second place in the Hawkeye State behind another outsider candidate Dr. Ben Carson.  Trump's Twitter account, which he had leveraged for publicity to personally comment during the Democrat debate, forwarded a snarky dismissal of the poll, denegrating Iowans.  

Within a couple of hours, the Trump campaign deleted the tweet and expressed the regret for a young intern for the gaffe.  OK. so much for spoiling for a fight and never backing down as well as the aura of authenticity. But it goes to show the importance of not offending Hawkeyes and alienating the charm of Iowa Stubborn. 





If not Iowa, Republican candidates have to rely on doing well in New Hampshire, the first primary state.  The Granite State had a long reputation for picking Republican winners, with a couple of notable recent exception. Typically, New Hampshire voters are contrarian rejecting Iowa’s lead. Candidates sometimes camp out there to do tons of town hall meetings to maximize retail politics.   Senator John McCain (R-AZ) used it as his breakout moment in 2008. Conventional wisdom is that if you don’t do well in Iowa or New Hampshire, it is wise to hang it up.

A few contemporary candidates have sought to eschew the Iowa Caucuses and the First Primary in New Hampshire, much at their peril.  In 2008, Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NYC) calculated that he would win the Sunshine State due to the number of transplanted New Yorkers. So he essentially skpped Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Nevada. To his chagrin, Giuliani only garnered 14.7% of the vote.  On top of that, any delegates won were cut in half since the Florida primary was held too early for Republican rules. 

In 2012, Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT)  iconoclastically set up his campaign HQ in Orlando thinking that Florida would lead to victory.  But Huntsman came in third in New Hampshire and dropped out by Florida.

The 2016 GOP Primary cycle features a crowded field and seems strongly influenced by debate performances.  After the second debate at the Reagan Library, businesswoman Carly Fiorina catapulted up to third place in the national polls.  All of that is well and good, but political pundits need to consider what is her plausible path to victory? At this late stage in the campaign, can an unknown candidate build an organization for effective retail politics in the caucuses or does someone like Fiorina hope that Granite State contrarianism carries the day?  Would publicity from an early primary win be enough to build a successful campaign for the SEC primaries or is the hope to be the last acceptable alternative to a frontrunner or establishment candidate?

Frontrunners in the summer before a Presidential campaign year typically do not get the nomination, otherwise there might have been a President Dean (2004), President Gephardt (2008) or President Giuliani (2008). Hardball questions often hinder early frontrunners.  The trick is to peak and the right time and not get in too late.  In the 1980 cycle, then former Governor Ronald Reagan only announced his candidacy in November 1979 and had to rush to organize for Iowa.  But back then a late entry was feasible.  In the summer of 2007, Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) announced in late for the 2008 primaries and had trouble getting traction and fundraising.  In 2011, Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) joined the 2012 GOP primaries after the Ames Straw Poll, but was hindered by the late start and a monumentally bad debate performance. 

In the 2016 cycle, it has been postulated that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is wisely waiting in the background to pounce when the primaries start.  Cruz was the first to announce with a strong religious liberty stance that would appeal to evangelical voters.  Cruz is accused by Republican Party elites for pushing for show votes on principled policies (e.g. really repealing Obamacare, Iran Nuke Deal, defunding Planned Parenthood) which underline his “outsider” bona fides while still serving in the District of Calamity.  Cruz has a strong campaign war chest.  All signs point to strong organization in early contests and the SEC primaries.  Cruz is also competing in very small contests (like Guam and Puerto Rico) which are essential to winning enough contests to be considered for nomination.  Cruz is a skilled debater who has made good use of the limited time he has been given in debates and he has not made enemies with his opponents. Yet at the beginning of autumn 2015, Cruz is placing 5th out of 15 with 8% support in polls. 

Cruz’s path to victory would need to do well in Iowa (especially with very conservative and evangelical voters), be competitive in New Hampshire, rebound in conservative South Carolina and then be successful in the bulk of SEC primaries (including his home state of Texas) on March 1st.  This slow and steady success strategy does not have the sizzle of Trump or the establishment imprimatur for former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL), but is solid strategy that has a pathway to victory.  Whether or not this works remains to be seen. 

Looking at the GOP primaries methodically may not be as much fun as hobnobbing about the horse race with always changing polls, but it understands the primary process and gives benchmarks for successful strategy rather than a blind bandwagon approach to campaigns. 

On The Cruz Effect and the Capitol Hill Cocktail Party

Former Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was recently interviewed on Sirius-XM radio by Pete Dominick in which he disparaged "The Cruz Effect".  Coburn chaffed at lawmakers being put in a position to make desperate stands about legislative items which he believes have no chance of overcoming a veto. This was not the first time in which Coburn raised this reluctance to futilely fight. Coburn said similar things to Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe in 2013.

Senator Coburn was a 20 year veteran of the Senate and had developed a reputation for being "Dr. No" for his conservative intransigence.  Yet before retiring to tend to his Colon Cancer after the 2014 election cycle, Senator Coburn exhibited an animus against Tea Party types, with Huffington Post headlines bragging of a Coburn Smack Down of the Tea Party. Coburn was quick to condem Senator Cruz's shut down tactic on Obamacare. Some Tea Party constituents wondered if he was a Charlatan, Traitor or Patriot for his go along to get along Senatorial approach  gun control.

Although he is no longer in the Senate, Senator Coburn is pushing a Cocktail Party approach to things. In Oklahoma, it is not hard to sound conservative and promise to repeal Obamacare, protect the second amendment or now even to defund Planned Parenthood.  But where the rubber meets the road in legislating in the District of Calamity, intentions and ardor matter.

When speaking to Scarborough about Obamacare in 2013, Senator Coburn rightly points out that Republicans did not have 67 votes to overcome an expected Presidential veto from Barack Obama. Right. So when has either party had vetoproof supermajorities in the Senate? Not in nearly half a century.  In the 89th Congress (1965-67), Democrats held 68 seats in the Senate and 295 House seats. During the New Deal, Democrats had veto proof majorities in the 74th and 75th Congresses (1935-39).  During Reconstruction after the Civil War, there were veto proof majorities for Republicans in the 39th, 40th, 41st and 43rd Congresses.

So having an assured veto proof majority is a rarity in American polity. Nowadays, the benchmark seems to be reaching Cloture (now set at 60 votes in the Senate).  After the election of Barack Obama and the eventual seating of Senator Al Franken (D-MN), Democrats had Cloture proof majority until Senator Scott Brown, the elected replacement for Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was seated (replacing interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA)).

So it is fanciful for a Republican to think that their measures will have veto-proof (or Cloture proof) majorities by party votes alone through regular legislative procedures. But does that mean not doing anything because you are unsure if it will be enacted?

The reason why the comments of a former Republican Senator matter is that it epitomizes the conflict on Capitol Hill for the next Speaker and is a reason why outsider Republican Presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are leading in the polls.

What has been called the Surrender Caucus is only happy to fight for bills which they are certain will be enacted.  Sure, you can campaign conservatively for the "rubes" back home, but politicians who are comfortably ensconced in the District of Calamity Cocktail Party won't spend any political capital for causes in which victory is uncertain.  Hence they surrender without a real fight.

For example, with the recent effort to defund Planned Parenthood, there were attempts to attach a rider onto a Continuing Resolution to divert funding for womens' health from the embattled abortionists to community health centers. The Byrd Rule for budget bills only required 51 votes for passage (avoiding a Cloture Vote). But President Obama promised to veto the CR and Republican Leadership feared that it might be blamed for a government shut down.  So they surrendered without a fight and Senate Majority "Leader" Mitch McConnell jammed down a clean CR through December 11th. This was not a one-off but was indicative of a pattern, which Tea Party renegades like Cruz have exposed for the shame that it is.

It might have been messy, but having must pass legislation like the Highway Bill, a Continuing Resolution or a real Congressional Budget with liberally unappealing riders might have forced the hand of President Obama to shut the government down.  If the Republicans had a better communication strategy, they might not automatically be blamed for shutting the government down when it was an Executive Branch veto which did the dirty deed.  As the branches sought to craft a resolution, concessions might be extracted.  So in the case of Obamacare (a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act), a nigglesome provision like the employer mandate could be up for grabs, which eventually would kill the clunky and unpopular system.  But that involves some guts to take a political risk and then be ready to fight hard in the media and on Capitol Hill.But it's so much easier to, echoing Mr. Coburn: "Dingity, we tried but we just didn't have the votes to do it. Too bad (but we'll still rail against it for the next election).

The House Republican Caucus is set to nominate another candidate for Speaker.  Despite the entreaties of Speaker John Boehner that he is retiring after the crowing achievement of his Congressional career of having Pope Francis speak before a Joint Session of Congress, the reality is that he was set to resign because he would lose a Vacate the Chair vote.  Boehner could not win the necessary votes in the GOP Caucus because the Freedom Caucus both wants a leader who will fight but will also vote on their legislation rather than dictate what will be voted on (and will will or will pointedly lose and be a campaign issue).

After the talking heads shows this weekend, there is speculation that House Ways and Means Chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) is reconsidering running for Speaker but he does not want  any strings attached to achieve the big chair.  Ryan's record on immigration issues does not jibe with conservatives and not allowing stands for legislation not certain to pass goes against the grain of the Freedom Caucus.

In the larger Presidential Primary picture, many insiders wonder why political novices like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina lead in the polls.  Perhaps they are not seem corrupted by the system and are talking a good game about fighting the power.

Senator Coburn's cautionary comments about legislating are true enough, but they reveal that establishment Republicans don't really want to fight. Some Tea Party elected officials have not sold out to the Establishment. This explains why Leaders are anxious to primary rebellious Tea Party types and bad mouth others.  Since Republicans have not had a Veto Proof majority since 1875, is it their role to be Democrat lite, only proposing what can get passed and signed by a Democrat President?  What about the years when there were Republican Majorities in both Chambers of Congress and Republican President?  It does not seem like things were much different then.

Pundits have noted that Congress has a similar favorability rating to the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea with communist dictator Kim-Il-ung. This might explain why disaffected voters might welcome a congressional Cruz missile in the form of fighting for principles and causes.  This will be put to the test during the Republican primaries.  But political junkies might get early indications how this "fight to fight" will succeed  in the Speaker's Race.