Monday Open Thread [8.3.15]

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–McClathcy/Marist:

Clinton 44, Bush 29, Trump 20 +15

Clinton 47, Rubio 42 +5
Clinton 48, Paul 43 +5
Clinton 49, Bush 43 +6
Clinton 48, Walker 41 +7
Clinton 47, Perry 40 +7
Clinton 49, Cruz 40 +9
Clinton 50, Huckabee 41 +9
Clinton 49, Carson 39 +10
Clinton 50, Christie 40 +10
Clinton 49, Kasich 39 +10
Clinton 54, Trump 38 +16

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY—WSJ/NBC News: Trump 19, Walker 15, Bush 14, Carson 10, Cruz 9, Huckabee 6, Rubio 5, Paul 6, Kasich 3, Christie 3, Perry 3, Jindal 1, Santorum 1, Fiorina 0, Graham 0

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY—Rasmussen: Trump 26, Walker 14, Bush 10, Carson 5, Cruz 7, Huckabee 7, Rubio 5, Paul 3, Kasich 5, Christie 2, Perry 2, Jindal 2, Santorum 2, Fiorina 1, Graham 1

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY—Gravis Marketing: Trump 31, Bush 13, Walker 13, Carson 6, Huckabee 6, Cruz 6, Rubio 5, Kasich 5, Paul 4, Christie 3, Perry 3, Fiorina 2, Santorum 2, Graham 1, Jindal 1, Pataki 0

NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY—Gravis Marketing: Clinton 55, Sanders 18, Warren 9, Biden 8, Webb 5, O’Malley 3, Chafee 2

ILLINOIS–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY—PPP: Walker 23, Trump 18, Bush 11, Christie 8, Carson 7, Rubio 6, Huckabee 5, Paul 5, Cruz 4, Fiorina 3, Santorum 2, Jindal 2, Perry 1, Kasich 1, Graham 1

ILLINOIS–PRESIDENT–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY—PPP: Clinton 60, Sanders 23, O’Malley 4, Webb 3, Chafee 1

ILLINOIS–PRESIDENT–PPP:

Clinton 48, Bush 3
Clinton 50, Walker 39
Clinton 49, Rubio 37
Clinton 51, Trump 33

IOWA–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY—Gravis Marketing: Trump 31, Walker 15, Bush 10, Jindal 7, Huckabee 6, Cruz 6, Carson 5, Kasich 5, Fiorina 4, Santorum 3, Rubio 3, Perry 2, Graham 1, Christie 1, Paul 1, Pataki 1

IOWA–PRESIDENT–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY—Gravis Marketing: Clinton 51, Sanders 24, Warren 11, Biden 6, O’Malley 5, Chafee 2, Webb 1

Hillary pretty much destroys Jeb Bush’s entire campaign last week at her speech to the Urban League:

“I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare, or repealing Obamacare,” Clinton said, a jab at Bush’s well-known PAC slogan, “Right to Rise.”
“People can’t rise if they can’t afford healthcare,” she continued. “They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you can’t seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote.” The crowd cheered.

When Bush finally took the stage to address issues of race and repairing American cities, he didn’t hit back. “I’m pleased to see other candidates here as well,” Bush said, even acting like a host in his home state and thanking Clinton, as well as the three other candidates who spoke, by name. (A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a question about whether the candidates crossed paths behind stage.)

Matthew Dickinson, a political scientist from Middlebury College in Vermont, makes two observations on Bernie Sanders and the Democratic primary:

Before my twitter and blog feed is inundated with negative comments from the #feelthebern crowd, let me remind my readers that I’m analyzing where the candidates stand right now, and not expressing a political preference regarding an outcome. As a longtime Bernie-watcher, I’m thoroughly enjoying his time, however brief, on the national stage, and I sincerely hope his run lasts beyond Iowa and New Hampshire if for no other reason than to see Bernie scowl one more time at another inane horserace question from Chuck Todd. Bernie is raising important issues – including concerns about the intersection of race and income inequality – that need to be discussed at the national level. But it is also the case that his “surge” in the polls is much more about pollsters dropping Elizabeth Warren’s name from their list of potential candidates as it is any discernible shift in support away from Clinton. It fits the media horserace narrative to speculate about the possibility, however improbable, that Clinton will stumble and Sanders will step in to steal the nomination. As of today, however, the facts say that is not going to happen. Bernie trails Clinton in all the important indicators; national polls, early state polls, fundraising and party endorsements.

Is there something about Bernie? Yes. Right now, he’s losing.

My point here is not to declare the race for the Democratic nomination over. As I noted in my response to a couple of commentators yesterday, polls this early are subject to change. More than one of you pointed out (see comments) that Clinton was leading Obama in national polls at this point in the race back at a comparable point in 2007. (For what it is worth, she was up on Obama in the RealClearPolitics aggregate poll by less than 13%, at 38%-25.8% on July 31, 2007. As of today, Clinton is ahead of Bernie by about 40%, 58%-18.2%.)

John Harwood:

Donald Trump makes mainstream Republicans angry, understandably. His inflammatory rhetoric and sudden rise toward the top of 2016 presidential polls threaten their careers.
Yet Republican political leaders themselves bear some responsibility for Mr. Trump’s ascent. In dealing with the dyspeptic constituency that has empowered them, they’ve repeatedly failed at anger management.

Throughout Barack Obama’s presidency, the Republican Party has been a hothouse of grievance: against his health care law, his immigration policy, even his citizenship. The ire of conservatives helped Republican candidates wrest control from the Democrats of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

But the inability of party leaders to control that intensity has often backfired. In primary campaigns, it has toppled effective Republican lawmakers.

The New York Times looks at Republican reactions to the Iran agreement.

The exaggerations and half-truths that some Republicans are using to derail President Obama‘s important and necessary nuclear deal with Iran are beyond ugly. Invoking the Holocaust, Mike Huckabee, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, has accused Mr. Obama of marching Israelis “to the door of the oven.” Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas, has compared Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped negotiate the deal, to Pontius Pilate.

What should be a thoughtful debate has been turned into a vicious battle against Mr. Obama, involving not just the Republicans but Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader against their own commander in chief has widened an already dangerous breach between two old allies.

Policy considerations aside, what is most striking about the demagoguery is how ahistorical, if not downright hypocritical, it is. Negotiating with adversaries to advance a more stable world has long been a necessity, and Republican presidents have been among its most eager practitioners.

Dana Milbank on the Republicans introducing the More Abortions Act of 2015.

Senate Republicans this week, teeming with righteous indignation, introduced S. 1881, “a bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

Here’s a better name for it: the Abortion Promotion Act of 2015.

No doubt the authors of the legislation think that anything that hurts Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions, would further the pro-life cause. But their proposal — defunding all Planned Parenthood operations in retribution for secret videos showing the group’s officials discussing the sale of fetal organs — would do far greater harm to fetuses than anything discussed in the videos.

There already is a ban on federal funding of abortion, with rare exceptions, at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else. The federal funds Senate Republicans propose taking away from Planned Parenthood are used largely to provide women with birth control. And because there simply isn’t a network of health-care providers capable of taking over this job if Planned Parenthood were denied funding, this means hundreds of thousands of women, if not millions, would over time lose access to birth control.

New York Times: “Donald Trump’s surge in the polls has been met with barely concealed delight by Jeb Bush and his supporters. Mr. Trump’s bombastic ways have simultaneously made it all but impossible for those vying to be the alternative to Mr. Bush to emerge, and easier for Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, to position himself as the serious and thoughtful alternative to a candidate who has upended the early nominating process.”

“With little indication that his support is slipping and the promise of the center stage at Thursday’s debate, Mr. Trump has essentially frozen the rest of the field.”