Friday Open Thread [10.30.15]

PENNSYLVANIA—Franklin & Marshall: Clinton 52, Sanders 18
OKLAHOMA—The Oklahoman: Clinton 30, Sanders 21, O’Malley 1
TEXAS—KTVT-CBS 11: Clinton 59, Sanders 10, O’Malley 3

NATIONAL—Reuters/Ipsos: Trump 29, Carson 27, Bush 9, Rubio 6, Cruz 5.
PENNSYLVANIA–Franklin & Marshall: Trump 23, Carson 22, Rubio 13, Kasich 6, Cruz 4, Fiorina 3, Bush 3, Christie 3, Huckabee 1, Santorum 1, Paul 1, Jindal 1
TEXAS—KTVT-CBS 11: Carson 23, Trump 22 Cruz 14, Bush 13, Rubio 7, Fiorina 5, Huckabee 3, Christie 2, Paul 1
OKLAHOMA—The Oklahoman: Carson 25, Trump 19, Rubio 9, Cruz 7, Huckabee 4, Bush 3, Fiorina 2, Kasich 2, Paul 1, Christie 1

Carson the leader in Texas and Oklahoma and one point behind in Pennsylvania.

KENTUCKY—Courier-Journal/SurveyUSA: Conway 45, Bevin 40, Curtis 6

Ryan Lizza: “Is it really going to nominate someone like Trump (or Carson), whose views are are so far outside the mainstream that either would pave the way for a historic Democratic landslide?”

“It’s doubtful. The overwhelming majority of Republican voters have repeatedly told pollsters this year that, whatever their choice in any given poll, they haven’t made up their minds yet. Most won’t think hard about their decision for at least another three months. At this point in 2008, Rudy Giuliani was the polling leader. In 2012, it was Cain. Rather than tell us anything deep about voter sentiments, polls at this point generally reflect name recognition and which candidates are receiving the most media attention at any given time.”

Norm Ornstein: “In every recent national poll of Republicans, including those with likely voters, with or without leaners, the breakdown is that the five main outsider candidates (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee) combine to generate between 63 and 70 percent support. The three main establishment candidates, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich, combine to between 12 and 19 percent.”

“Of course, there is a chance that as one or more of the outsider candidates falters, their supporters will gravitate to Rubio or one of the other establishment figures. Or that the outsiders will fragment in support, allowing Rubio, the establishment favorite, to do what Mitt Romney did in 2012. But it is a bit more likely that the bulk of those voters will opt instead for another outsider.”

“The third Republican presidential debate was supposed to be one that winnowed the field. Instead, it is likely to revive several faltering candidates, while harming only one — former front-runner Jeb Bush,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

“The event Wednesday night suggested that, even as the Democratic contest is narrowing, the race for the Republican nomination remains wide open, with months to go before the first states to vote — Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — finally force some consolidation onto a field that still includes more than a dozen candidates.”

Rick Klein: “If the Republican Party has a path out of its extended Trump moment, it didn’t find it at the third GOP debate of the election cycle. Wednesday night’s debate was as chaotic as the race it was designed to help sort out. A race that features two outsiders on top saw a group of veteran politicians squabble among themselves and take on the media as a group, with little apparent clarity imposed on the race. In its broadest strokes, the debate marked an attempt by members of the party establishment to reclaim the nominating process from forces they’ve struggled to understand and adjust to. But nobody on stage seemed to connect in a way that would change the dynamics that have Donald Trump and Ben Carson leading a field of veteran elected office holders.”

Taegan Goddard on how each candidate did in the third Republican debate:

The winners of the debate were Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Both senators were ready and used the format to their advantage. Rubio had plenty of opportunities to show off his political skills and regularly turned questions to his advantage. Cruz took issue with the bad questions and turned his fire against the media — always an effective strategy in a GOP debate.

The big loser was Jeb Bush. After a failed attack on Rubio’s missed votes in the U.S. Senate, he looked like a defeated man. He’s surely intelligent but he has an amazing ability to choose the wrong words. He needed a better performance to show he was worthy of his donors and didn’t deliver. To paraphrase Pulp Fiction: “Jeb’s dead, baby. Jeb’s dead.”

Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie also had a good night. Both have sharp political skills but haven’t put them to together in package that rises to the top of the field. They might start angling to be someone’s running mate.

Donald Trump and Ben Carson proved that as these debates go on, neither is comfortable dealing with the details of public policy. Carson’s response to a question about his tax policy was unintelligible, though he did come back with an effective response to a terrible question about his service on corporate boards. In a question on H1B visas, Trump proved he doesn’t even know what’s on his own website. Nonetheless, they’re both still very interesting to watch.

John Kasich tried to shine a light on the policy inconsistencies of his rivals but he’s become the Jon Huntsman of this cycle. It’s not clear the GOP electorate cares much. Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee are just forgettable and probably shouldn’t be invited to the next debate.

Fatman Chris Christie said the President has made it more dangerous to be a police officer in this country, which is an outright lie and Chris Christie should be punched directly in the face because of it. The reality is, and the facts are, it has never been safer to be a police officer in this country. Indeed, violent crime in this country is at historic lows.

Just because you see something shared a thousand times on social media does not mean there is an epidemic or an outbreak of violence. That goes for there being racist brutal cops caught breaking the law just as it goes for violence against police.

Stephen Collinson at CNN says Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign is facing a full-blown existential crisis.

The former Florida governor’s attempt to revive his White House hopes during Wednesday’s Republican debate by taking on his former protege, Sen. Marco Rubio, backfired badly. Instead, he delivered a performance drained of passion, fire and inspiration followed by a testy post-game interview that added up to a disastrous night for Bush. […] But his performance only confirmed and deepened damning perceptions of his political skills and questions about his stomach for the fight. And Bush is already trying to stave off the stench of decay that quickly gathers around losing campaigns.

This is why we have campaigns, and this also proves the notion that sometimes candidates are only good for one era. Jeb Bush looked great on paper. But he is not a firebreather. He can be rather boring. He has made stupid gaffes. And his time has past. He would have made a good candidate in 2000.

Paul Krugman’s take on the debate:

At one point during Wednesday’s Republican debate, Ben Carson was asked about his involvement with Mannatech, a nutritional supplements company that makes outlandish claims about its products and has been forced to pay $7 million to settle a deceptive-practices lawsuit. The audience booed, and Mr. Carson denied being involved with the company. Both reactions tell you a lot about the driving forces behind modern American politics.

As it happens, Mr. Carson lied. He has indeed been deeply involved with Mannatech, and has done a lot to help promote its merchandise. PolitiFact quickly rated his claim false, without qualification. But the Republican base doesn’t want to hear about it, and the candidate apparently believes, probably correctly, that he can simply brazen it out. These days, in his party, being an obvious grifter isn’t a liability, and may even be an asset.

Carson, Trump, Fiorina, Rubio and Christie were each caught in easily disprovable bold faced lies. Perhaps it’s because Republican just lie with more frequency and daring. And that is because Republican voters want to be lied to. They do not want to live in a world where a black man with a funny name is not only President, but a rather successful one who has turned the country around from the disaster left from the previous Republican President. They do not want to live in a world where “coloreds” and women don’t know their place. A world that has more orientation than straight, more religion than Christian.

Steve Benen wonders if Ben Carson is debate proof.

Steve Deace, a conservative radio host and Ted Cruz supporter, told MSNBC last night, “I think you saw tonight, and Ben’s a great guy, issue-wise he’s out of his depth.” That seems more than fair. The question is whether or not it will matter.

By any fair assessment, Carson’s first two debate performances were no better than last night’s. The GOP doctor generally seems half-awake, delivering rambling answers that tend to crumble when subjected to any real scrutiny.

But in the weeks that followed those debates, Carson’s support – in polls and in fundraising – went up quite a bit. Indeed, some recent polling suggests he’s leading the entire Republican field, even passing Donald Trump in Iowa. All of which leads one to wonder whether Carson is simply debate-proof. Perhaps it doesn’t much matter whether or not he delivers impressive performances because, for Carson’s loyal fans, his debate appearances have no bearing on his support?

It’s not a sustainable model over the long haul, because in time, Carson will need to appeal to a broader and more diverse group of voters. But in the meantime, it’s entirely possible, if not likely, that Carson will continue to do very well among far-right voters no matter how poorly he does in events like last night’s debate.

Indeed, I believe neither Trump nor Carson will survive once actual votes are cast. They will look at Cruz, Carson and Trump and say: I am angry, but I don’t want an amateur to be destroyed by Clinton. So they will choose Cruz instead of Carson and Trump.