I can think of about 10 explanations for that, but I'll let you talk about it in the comments, and I will rectify my omission in my previous poll by including Ted Cruz this time:
२४ फेब्रुवारी, २०१५
Walker pulls up alongside Ted Cruz in Texas.
This is striking:
I can think of about 10 explanations for that, but I'll let you talk about it in the comments, and I will rectify my omission in my previous poll by including Ted Cruz this time:
I can think of about 10 explanations for that, but I'll let you talk about it in the comments, and I will rectify my omission in my previous poll by including Ted Cruz this time:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
Which Republican would I choose were I invested with the power to appoint anyone I pleased? Or who is my preferred candidates in the primary at this time?
Well, since there's no space for a write-in, obviously the latter.
Just choose Walker. Don't overthink it. Join the Cult of Walker. Led by St. Garage of the Mahal.
@Simon It's very hard to word the question. I was trying to exclude votes that are about wanting a nominee who will lose. It's hard not to end up with an overlong question like: Assuming you want the GOP nominee to win, who should the GOP nominate in 2016?
But that's asking people to absorb the conventional wisdom about who will or won't appeal to moderates or energize the base or whatever.
I'll just predict that Ben Carson will win with the poll worded the way I have it.
That shows to go you that Goldilocks Scott Walker is the "just right" candidate. All of the others alienate as many as they attract. Hmmm?
Oh! I see my prediction is way the hell off.
You may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is: THE SCOTT WALKER FOR PRESIDENT MOVEMENT! . . . and all you gotta do to join is to sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.
I...WANT...Walker...I...want...
Ben Carson for Surgeon General!
John Bolton for Secretary of State!
I wanna be ready! I wanna be ready!
I wanna be ready, Lord, Walker in Washington just like Garage.
I wanna be ready! I wanna be ready!
I wanna be ready, Lord, to Walker in Washington just like Garage.
Oh, Garage, Oh Garage, Oh, whatta you say?
Walker in Washington just like Garage.
I'll meet you there on Inauguration Day.
Walker in Washington just like Garage.
traditionalguy said...
"That shows to go you that Goldilocks Scott Walker is the "just right" candidate. All of the others alienate as many as they attract. Hmmm?"
Just wanted to say I think this strikes a chord.
I am Laslo.
Walker in Washington just like Garage.
Ann, why didn't you just ask your husband who he prefers instead of letting him click away all morning on your pole?
Hmm, perhaps I didn't phrase that right.
Just choose Walker. Don't overthink it. Join the Cult of Walker. Led by St. Garage of the Mahal.
What happened to "no we need Scott Walker in Wisconsin"? What changed?
Oh that's right, Dear Leader decided to run. So as a cult member you are obliged to throw yourself at Dear Leader's feet. Will you cry hysterically if Walker doesn't get the nomination?
Cruz leads Walker by 1 point in his home state which is to be expected.
But Walker more than doubles Bush III's support in the State that is supposed to be the Bush Family home base where Bush I and Bush II claim it for their own.
What's that about?
@Garage, I'll meet you there on Inauguration Day!
LOL @ Oh! I see my prediction is way the hell off.
Yeah, Walker is on a roll no doubt. Long way to go but a promising start. Even though Jeb got out in front early, it seems he has stalled recently, maybe the lack of political combat the past 10 years is catching up to him.
I think Republicans want someone who has proven he has the ability and the backbone to govern competently and that is Walker.
What happened to "no we need Scott Walker in Wisconsin"? What changed?
California needs Walker too as does the nation in order to avoid a Cali-fate.
My crazy sister in San Antonio knows his name so he's got the name recognition thing down. When my wife, who doesn't follow politics much at all, learns about him the Scott Walker phenomena will have reached critical mass.
I bet this poll scares the hell out Putin. Like pushing around kindergarten teachers scares Putin.
Molotov!
The obvious explanation is that you left Cruz out of your last poll, causing Cruz to drop and Walker to rise in Texas.
Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational blog...
garage mahal said...
"Molotov!"
That's the spirit!
If last cycle was any indication, expect constant swings over the next year or so, with new frontrunners every month.
In the end, though, I don't see Cruz getting the nomination. He has a core of very devoted supporters, but his appeal is not broad enough to win over most GOP voters while splitting the Right among several contenders.
The may be some selection bias in the poll results, as readers of this blog are probably in the top 1% of people who have knowledge of Scott Walker (regardless of their views of him and his policies).
"Ann, why didn't you just ask your husband who he prefers instead of letting him click away all morning on your pole?"
My pole?
You obviously have no idea how things work at Meadhouse.
"That shows to go you that Goldilocks Scott Walker is the "just right" candidate. All of the others alienate as many as they attract. Hmmm?"
For me it’s always been “the candidate who is closest to me on the issues I care the most about, has the best chance of being elected and has the skills to do the job that I want them to do.”
On the skills question, I think governors or others with experience running a major organization are the ones most likely to have the kind of executive skills needed to be President so that eliminates Cruz, Paul, Carlson, Santorum, Rubio and Bolton.
On the electability question, you should have run and won at least a Statewide race before (which eliminates Fiorina) and not generally developed a persona that removes you from consideration as a serious candidate (which eliminates Palin and Huckabee who both decided to go the celebritney route when they left office).
So that leaves Bush, Christie, Walker, Jindal, Kaisch and Perry. I would consider any of these individuals to be well-qualified and serious candidates. My preference is Scott Walker with Bobby Jindal as a close second at this point for several reasons. First I think it helps when a governor has to deal with an opposition party since it’s unlikely s/he will have the situation Obama did in his first two years with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and his party in control of the House. Coming from a purple or even a blue State also means you’ve had to adopt a more moderate persona which I think makes you more electable in the crucial swing States (Perry’s talk about secession is positively cringe-worthy). Christie, Kaisch and Bush have each taken positions on issues that would make it difficult for them to garner grassroots support in the GOP. So that leaves Walker and Jindal in my mind as the two strongest candidates and with Walker having survived the recall election stronger than ever, governing a blue-purple State and having taken on the strongest Democratic constituent group (public employee unions) and won, I think he’s probably best suited as the Republican candidates for 2016.
"Walker pulls up alongside Ted Cruz in Texas."
Althouse provides the image of Walker pulling up next to the Cruz-mobile on a long strip of dry Texas road, revving-up his Harley-Davidson, pack of cigarettes folded in the sleeve of his short-sleeved white t-shirt.
That's when Althouse fell for... The Leader of the Pack
(Robert Goulet as Scott Walker.)
And so we are to believe that the Texas Tribune, a non-profit located in Austin run by veteran Austin journalism types has NO agenda with regard to Ted Cruz?
This is fucking laughable!!!
Scott Walker is being positioned as the Establishment-approved alternative to Jeb Bush. Mark it down.
Thorley, that is waaaay to logical and pragmatic. You must be an alien. I cannot possibly see a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green in that statement. Expect the politics of personal destruction to commence from all quarters, beginning at 09:23.
(Somewhat less tongue in cheek, that is the biggest risk to Walker and Jindal, a Baptist-Bootlegggers opposition of Democrats - Establishment Republicans - Nascent American Royal Families (Busch, Clinton, Dregs of Kennedy--err, nm the last ones) - Progressives).
Maybe peaking too soon? We will see.
"Molotov" was the only funny line in the article.
Tom Cotton...the fabric of our lives...
Why the gains for Scott Walker?
Ineffectual attacks help the candidate. Thank you Dana Milbank.
Too early to say who among them will have the judgment, maturity and breadth of vision to put the country back on an even keel, and address the manifest problems abroad that have been piling up for the last six years. It's easier to say who lacks the judgment and character to make the cut.
Walker/Martinez.
Although either of Walker/Jindal or Walker/Haley would also be perfectly acceptable.
Any of those three add a minority. Two add a woman and a minority. All three add a fellow successful, two-term governor from a different part of the country.
Martinez is the best bet because she is a successful, two-term governor from a different part of the country that is a blue state, and she is a fluent Spanish-speaking Hispanic with family ties to a Mexican national hero.
And she has a compelling story about converting from being a Democrat to being a Republican.
How strong is Martinez? The republicans put forth a 2-bagger and watch the feministas' fur fly.
And with her Latino background....blue on blue.
My female is more valid than yours is.
My Mexican is more valid than yours is.
I would hope that bullshit would show how stupid ID politics is and maybe quiet down the country.
I've been a fan of Ted Cruz since he was Texas' solicitor general, and supported him for U.S. Senate from the day he announced for the GOP primary against heavily favored and very conventionally (dully) conservative David Dewhurst -- whom Cruz eventually trounced.
I wouldn't interpret these numbers to show any fading of support for Sen. Cruz among his home-state partisans. He's more popular in Texas now, I believe, than he was the day he was elected.
However, some of us Texans think that before running for POTUS, one ought acquire more than two years' experience on a national stage.
Cruz is already a vastly more consequential U.S. Senator than Barack Obama ever was; face it, Barack Obama was a presidential candidate only from the day he walked into the Senate, and had essentially no impact on what happened in the Senate, and that's not true of Cruz.
I'm a fan of both my home-state senators, Cruz and John Cornyn, although they're about as different as two successful Texas politicians are ever likely to be. I'm gratified that Cruz is being a firebrand for undiluted conservatism, not just for Texans but for a large segment of Americans who aren't used to hearing or seeing that from go-along/get-along Beltway types. But I'm also frankly glad that Cornyn is there working behind the scenes and in the party leadership in more traditional ways.
And my own perception is that Cruz is certainly thinking about being President someday. He's open to the possibility that 2016 might turn out to be his year to catch the lightning in a bottle. But he's a vastly better chess player-at-politics than, say, Sarah Palin, and he's certainly aware that he's still a very young man. I genuinely believe he's looking at a long game measured in decades. And while I would be happy to see him participating in GOP presidential primary debates for the effect it would have in educating the country, I will be surprised if he ends up as the 2016 GOP presidential nominee.
I'm comfortable with nearly all the Governors and ex-Governors. However, you just have to look at Ted Cruz to know that he's the kind of guy who short sheeted someone at summer camp. Walker, Bush, Huckabee, and Kasich look to be decent, bland, and affable people. Thank God we have a free press that will reveal to us that they are demon spawn capable of any crime in their unholy quest for world domination.
Re being on a "national stage": Walker's supporters have a better argument than any other sitting state governor that their guy has been on a national stage because of the nationwide resources and attention paid by the Democratic Party to ousting him from his purplish-blue gubernatorial mansion. And that's actually a pretty good argument.
I voted Rand Paul because he is the closest reflection to my tastes, but I doubt Paul can sniff winning a primary.
@ william: Actually, if you listen much to, or read from the writings of, Ted Cruz, you'll conclude that he was the guy at summer camp who was trying to get the other kids to participate in debate about Locke versus Hume, without too much success (because no one was willing or able to stand up to Cruz in debate).
Beldar says it better than I could both times.
Oh, and seconding the description of the poll sponsors I saw above:
For non-Texans, you should consider that a poll from the Texas Tribune, UT-Austin (I assume their poly-sci or journalism departments), or PPP is roughly equivalent to a poll from dKos. Those were the same folks who cooked their polls sufficiently in late 2013 and early 2014 so as to make it appear that Wendy Davis had a chance in Texas.
Ann Althouse said...
"Assuming you want the GOP nominee to win, who should the GOP nominate in 2016?"
Ah. See, that understanding changes my vote. Given a choice between those people as President, I'd pick Bolton, but there's zero chance of him winning, mostly because of the precise virtues which incline me to support him.
I don't see any reason to take Ben Carson seriously. I assume that most of us were serious in 2008 when we said Barack Obama was unqualified to be President, and if Obama was not qualified, it's difficult to understand how Carson could be.
At this point I would be quite happy to see Walker as prez and Cruz as senate majority leader. Get rid of weepy and replace him with a real conservative and for one we would have an effective government. As for the other republicans on the list; Bolton for secretary of state, Rand Paul as AG and the rest would make fine cabinet officers.
Beldar said...
"I've been a fan of Ted Cruz since he was Texas' solicitor general, and supported him for U.S. Senate from the day he announced for the GOP primary...."
I liked him a lot better as Texas' SG, and I supported him when he ran for Senate. But his turn on the national stage has seen him turn into a demagogue, a silly caricature of the tea party blowhard, and with that in mind, I am not inclined to support him, no matter whether he has actually changed (there are reasons to think not) or whether he is cynically playing the base. Moreover, there is a question hanging over his status as a natural-born citizen; I wrote a skeptical analysis of that theory a couple of years back, which alas sank with SF, and which concluded that the answer wasn't clear either way, but it's a card that you can count on the Democrats playing if they think it can win, and Cruz isn't worth the risk.
cubanbob said...
"At this point I would be quite happy to see Walker as prez and Cruz as senate majority leader. Get rid of weepy and replace him with a real conservative and for one we would have an effective government. As for the other republicans on the list; Bolton for secretary of state, Rand Paul as AG and the rest would make fine cabinet officers."
If I thought for a second that a Republican President would appoint Rand Paul AG, I would seriously consider voting for Hillary Clinton. My God! It's the Miers nomination all over again! What the fuck have we been doing for 33 years if that's the best that we can do? These are serious jobs and we have serious people who can do them. Rand fucking Paul?
And Cruz for majority leader? I mean, get real. I can't think of anything more likely to first paralyze and then pulverize the Senate.
Maybe appoint Cruz as SG. That's something at which he excels, as Beldar points out, and perhaps a spell doing real work will redeem him and remind him that he used to be a serious person at yet could be again.
Wow! I must be the only one reading this blog outside the State of Wisconsin.
I can't wait for the new internet rules that nobody is allowed to see or discuss outside of the lefty inner circle surrounding Obama, and to see what they have to say about your *personal* blog.
Comrade, there are no personal blogs.
Simon, I hear you, and understand your concerns. I'll offer this by way of explanation and, perhaps, mitigation:
To use the overworked but apt cliché, Cornyn's being a workhorse and Cruz is being a showhorse right now. Cruz is, indeed, very deliberately playing the provocateur from his Senate seat, and it's a much more media- and sound-bite driven rhetoric than that which he used when he was Texas' solicitor general. He's just adjusting the hay so the goats can reach it.
But he hasn't forgotten how to play to that type of audience either.
It takes a different kind of rhetoric and style to grab the public's attention and educate them than it does to convince other legislators on the floor of Congress. I'm convinced Cruz is deliberately focusing on the former, with about the success he seeks. I'm okay with that because, as I noted, my other home-state senator, John Cornyn, is focused on the latter.
Anybody on that list would be preferable to Hillary Clinton, or any other shikepoke with a -D next to his/her name.
Simon and Beldar,
Thank you for the discussion. I, too, liked Cruz as SG, and I also voted for him for the Senate. I agree with Simon that his current public posturing as a senator often rubs me the wrong way.
I agree with Beldar, though, that Cruz is playing the long game. 2016 ain't in the cards.
Thanks again, guys. This blog is absolutely the best comment section on the internet thanks to thoughtful contributions like yours.
The question is "Which would you choose..." - That is Scott Walker.
Others for whom I would vote: Ben Carson, Rand Paul, maybe Bobby Jindal.
Otherwise, I'll pull the Libertarian lever.
@Simon learn from the opposition. If, if, the republicans were to pick Walker and Walker wins for once we just might have a chance to have a real conservative and smaller government and greater personal liberty type of roll-back. Paul has his faults but a libertarian is one singular virtue I would like to see in an AG. As for senate majority leader, enough with the old bull cronies. I want a farther to the right than Walker Senate Majority leader who will kick the RINO's and the same in the House. Walker can always be the 'compromiser' if need be. I want a rollback of the progressive state, not a more competently managed one.
If I thought for a second that a Republican President would appoint Rand Paul AG, I would seriously consider voting for Hillary Clinton. My God! It's the Miers nomination all over again! What the fuck have we been doing for 33 years if that's the best that we can do? These are serious jobs and we have serious people who can do them. Rand fucking Paul?
It wouldn't be enough to get me to vote for Hillary Clinton but I agree with your point. The key to regaining the White House after the other party has held it for two terms is pick a candidate who represents the answer to the qualities of the last one that pubic is tired of. Clinton beat Bush 41 because the latter was seen as old and out-of-touch while Clinton came across as youthful and very energetic. Bush 43 beat Gore because people were tired of Clinton’s personal scandals. Obama beat McCain because people were tired of the war. Obama’s Achilles heel is his incompetence (the smartest guy in the room who couldn’t find his ass with both hands) and general disdain for Middle America that slips out almost as quickly as the Praetorian Guard in the MSM can cover for him. Whoever we pick needs to be seen as down-to-earth (Romney’s big weakness) and competent (McCain and Palin’s). The people that serve in a President’s cabinet should be people who are the top in their field and/or impeccably qualified to excel at the job. Much as some of his fans adore him, Paul ain’t it and frankly neither are most of the people running for President.
cubanbob said...
"Paul has his faults but a libertarian is one singular virtue I would like to see in an AG."
AG is the absolute last billet you should want a libertarian occupying. Would you appoint a militant, anti-vaxxer vegan to head the FDA? Would you appoint a gold-standard audit-the-fed nut to the Federal Reserve?
I join Thorley's comment. Beldar, that's reassuring, to a degree, but I would have thought that the days when a candidate could be all things to all people have ended. Cruz can't be a blue-collar tea-party type to blue-collar tea-party types and a lawyer to lawyers and hope that the lawyers aren't going to notice and have heartburn about his populism or the tea partiers aren't going to notice or have heartburn about his sophistication. That said, Obama has gotten away with it, so maybe a candidate with sufficient charisma and air-cover can get away with it?
One reason I can see Walker, Perry or even Bush getting the nomination is that it's not crazy to imagine any of them winning over not only the GOP establishment types (suburbanites and businessfolk) but a sizable portion of the conservative base as well (Tea Partiers, libertarians, and Christian Right). It's no coincidence they are governors--as governors, they had to appeal to both the party base to get elected and work with the dealmakers to get things done, where Senators increasingly don't have to do that (there are deals to be made, but the consequences of it falling apart aren't really felt on an individual Senator).
AG is the absolute last billet you should want a libertarian occupying. Would you appoint a militant, anti-vaxxer vegan to head the FDA? Would you appoint a gold-standard audit-the-fed nut to the Federal Reserve?
When I was in high school I read a series of books called “Bio of a Space Tyrant” by Piers Anthony. The series was a political allegory for 1970s America set in the solar system with each of the planets representing a different continent or major nation. The title character Hope Hubris became the “tyrant” of the United States of North Jupiter after a constitutional convention gave him the total control of the government in order to balance the budget. Hubris had actually been a candidate for office before and had been constantly heckled by a curmudgeonly conservative/libertarian opinion columnist named Thorley who he eventually became friends with even though they rarely saw eye-to-eye on anything. When Hubris became dictator of the country he brought in Thorley who was appointed to serve as the censor of his administration, knowing full well that Thorley deplored censorship and would therefore act as a sort of internal check on him.
My point in all this is not just to relay my “origin story” but to suggest that it might in fact not be a bad idea to have as Attorney General a libertarian so long as you have the right sort of libertarian. The kind of libertarian who focuses the DOJ’s resources on going after actual criminals. The kind who usually hold elective office. Or acts as a check on the rest of the federal government when it encroaches on individual rights. And who most importantly (and rarely) the kind who like Jack Kemp (HUD) or William Bennett (Department of Education) testifies before Congress that their Department needs to be scaled back or eliminated.
But if it’s just going to be the kind who cackles madly and refuses to do anything (the libertarian of the Ron Swanson variety) then ultimately not only will they fail to achieve anything good, they will discredit themselves and their ideology.
"AG is the absolute last billet you should want a libertarian occupying."
I have to disagree--libertarian doesn't equate to not enforcing the existing laws, or undermining them. If anything, it would be nice to have the AG be someone who is sensitive to constitutional limits and the rule of law, unlike the current politically-minded gang that will let the ends justify any means necessary to advance their agenda. Give me a libertarian who respects the law over that any day.
I'm put off by what appears to be a lie by Walker. According to a link on Instanpundit:
At the same time, Walker was telling Fox News’s Bret Baier that he’d never supported a path to citizenship. Baier raised the issue because, in a 2013 editorial board meeting with a local Wisconsin newspaper, the Wausau Daily Herald, Walker had discussed the matter. “Actually, I’m glad you asked about that, because the Wausau newspaper erroneously quoted me on that,” Walker told Baier. “That’s wrong. It’s not what I said.” When the Daily Herald unearthed the video showing that it is what the governor said, Walker was again caught flatfooted.
Is Walker trying to pull the wool over the eyes of us primary voters on Immigration?
I don't like where this is going.
Put in a list like that, the "deep bench" of the Republicans does not look so deep. Wide and shallow is more like it. Maybe that's because, in spite of myself, I am influenced by the non-stop sliming of potential Republican candidates in the media. It's a constant. In this sense, Walker is lucky, because in full campaign mode the sliming is less influential. People are more skeptical, and the pushback gets more exposure.
Consider the alternative is always good advice. Walker will profit by this, if he can keep his wits about him.
I'm inclined to believe that the eventual winner has not even come forward yet as a candidate.
E.g. Mike Pence
no rudy giuliani?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा