Mediaboss Marketing

More than just the four early states will decide the 2020 Democratic primary. After all, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina only make up about 4 percent of the total delegates awarded, whereas the 16 states and territories that vote next on Super Tuesday contribute more than a third. But because these four states vote first, they play an outsized role in winnowing the candidate field and setting the course for the primary. Understanding the state of play in each contest is crucial to understanding where the nomination race stands and where it could go.

Back in early October, I found that the polls varied a fair amount in the early states, but Sen. Elizabeth Warren was on the upswing in Iowa and New Hampshire, with narrow leads over former Vice President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Biden had a slight edge in Nevada over Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders and a hefty lead in South Carolina. Now, roughly two months later, things have shifted: South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has supplanted Warren as the leader in Iowa while the four leading candidates are in a very tight race in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Bidens lead has increased in Nevada and has remained large and stable in South Carolina.

First up, Iowa, where even though Buttigieg has a lead, the top four candidates are within striking distance of one another. In an average of all Iowa polls taken in the last six weeks, Buttigieg leads Warren by about two points, 21 to 19 percent, but the top candidates are all within 5 points of each other. In New Hampshire, Buttigieg and Warren are essentially tied at roughly 18 percent, but the race is even closer as the top four candidates polling averages are within 2 points. For now, at least, the top four are in the same order in both states: Buttigieg, followed by Warren, then Sanders and Biden. (In the table below, we included anyone who made the November debate and is still running as of Dec. 6 although, as you can see, theyve all got some serious catching up to do.)

Polling averages in Iowa and New Hampshire over the past six weeks for candidates who qualified for the November debate and are still running

Averages based on polls of likely Democratic voters conducted between Oct. 28 and Dec. 6, which includes six polls of Iowa and five polls of New Hampshire.

Source: Polls

Buttigiegs rise in Iowa and New Hampshire, which we started to see signs of in September and October, has now created a four-way race at the top of the polls in these states. So whats helped catapult him into the lead? Although there isnt evidence that rigid ideological lanes have developed in the primary so far, Buttigiegs budding support from centrist and center-left Democrats probably has helped him rise to the top in Iowa and New Hampshire. And theres evidence that it has come at the expense of Warren and Biden. In Monmouth Universitys early November survey of likely Iowa caucusgoers, for instance, Buttigieg was tied with Biden for the lead among moderate or conservative Democrats (each with 26 percent) while also leading among somewhat liberal Democrats with 23 percent, ahead of Warrens 20 percent. And in a late November survey of New Hampshire from the Boston Globe and Suffolk University, Buttigieg edged out Biden 17 percent to 16 percent among moderate Democratic primary voters; Buttigieg trailed among liberal voters but still attracted 12 percent of them to Warrens 23 percent and Sanderss 24 percent.

Still, if the actual results in Iowa and New Hampshire ultimately look like recent polls, that would be very unusual: Since 1992, no Democratic primary or caucus in any state has had four candidates win at least 15 percent of the vote statewide. Of course, theres still roughly two months before Iowa votes on Feb. 3, so the field could shift once again; after all, Buttigiegs lead in both states is very small. It would be a little unusual, too, if he or someone else won both Iowa and New Hampshire. Only twice in the past seven Democratic presidential contests has the same candidate carried the two together: Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

But perhaps its not surprising that Iowa and New Hampshire polls mirror each other. After all, both have electorates that are close to 90 percent white, and the leading candidates save Biden predominantly appeal to white voters. That may help explain why Biden is having some difficulties in these very white states despite leading in the national polls. Ive discussed how, because of their outsized influence early on, losing Iowa and New Hampshire could hamper Bidens campaign, especially if the same person were to win both. However, its possible that a muddled outcome in which the four leading candidates run close together would be survivable, even if Biden does finish third or fourth in the first two states. Of course, the polls in these states are so tight that even if Biden doesnt win, he could still outperform expectations in them, which might position him to roll through the rest of the primary, considering what the polls show in Nevada and South Carolina.

In the polling averages of these two more diverse states, Biden holds a solid 9-point advantage in Nevada and a massive 25-point edge in South Carolina. And should Bidens leads hold up, the two later-voting early states could serve as a nice stepping stone going into Super Tuesday on March 3, when a number of states with sizable nonwhite electorates go to the polls.

Polling averages in Nevada and South Carolina over the past six weeks for candidates who qualified for the November debate and are still running

Averages based on polls of likely Democratic voters conducted between Oct. 28 and Dec. 6, which includes four polls of Nevada and three polls of South Carolina.

Source: Polls

Throughout the primary, Bidens continued support among nonwhite voters has given him a leg up in both Nevada and South Carolina. His strength among nonwhite Democrats is most apparent in South Carolina, where Biden hopes that the majority black primary electorate will serve as a firewall should the earlier elections go badly for him. And so far, so good: A mid-November survey from Quinnipiac University found Biden at 44 percent among black voters in South Carolina, way ahead of Sanderss second-place mark of 10 percent. In Nevada, Biden has the lead among nonwhite voters, too, but it isnt nearly as sizeable. A November poll by Fox News found Biden up just 28 percent to 26 percent over Sanders among nonwhites, which could be due to Sanderss strength among Hispanic voters (Sanders led Biden 31 percent to 24 percent). So part of Bidens strength in Nevada isnt just an advantage among nonwhite voters; hes also got a small advantage among white voters there, too, leading Warren 23 percent to 21 percent.

Unlike Biden, Buttigiegs low to nonexistent support among nonwhite voters might make it tough for him to break through in Nevada and South Carolina. In that South Carolina Quinnipiac poll, Buttigieg polled at 6 percent overall but didnt register any support among black voters. Similarly, that Fox News survey of Nevada found Buttigieg at 8 percent statewide but with only 2 percent support among nonwhite voters. Similarly, Warren has also struggled to win nonwhite support in either state, attracting only 8 percent of black voters in the South Carolina Quinnipiac poll and 12 percent of nonwhite voters in the Nevada Fox News survey.

Polling in the first four states has shifted quite a bit in the last month and a half as Buttigieg has moved up, but polling in Nevada and South Carolina underscores just how difficult it will be to dislodge Biden from the top of the field as long as he maintains strong support among nonwhite voters. And of course, there still could be a few more shifts in the early state polls between now and then. As past campaigns have shown, late surges arent unheard of but neither are late slides. Democrats also arent locked in on who they plan to support. Two polls from November, for instance, found that a majority of Democrats hadnt yet made up their minds. Voting might seem like its just around the corner, but theres still a ways to go.

Original post:
Whos Leading The Democratic Primary In The First Four States? - FiveThirtyEight

WATERLOO, IOWA, DECEMBER 5, 2019: Presidential candidate Joe Biden addresses supporters.-(Photo ... [+] credit should read Preston Ehrler / Echoes Wire / Barcroft Media via Getty Images)

When I heard that Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden was proposing to raise taxes by $3.2 trillion over 10 years, I flashed back to Walter Mondale and thought: My, how things have changed.

Mondale, like Biden, was a former vice president and political moderate who was looking to gain the Oval Office.Mondale, in what was sadlyfor himthe most memorable phrase of his 1984 campaign against Ronald Reaganexplicitly promised to raise taxes. In what has since been known as the Mondale moment, he said this: Mr. Reagan will raisetaxes, and so will I. He wont tell you. I just did."

Mondale insisted his tax hikes would target the wealthy and Reagans wouldnt. It didnt matter. In the election, Reagan got 525 electoral votes. Mondale got 13. He lost the popular vote by 18 million.

Soft-peddling tax hikes

That was, gulp, nearly 35 years ago. And in the eight campaigns since, no major Democratic presidential candidate was willing to so aggressively promote their tax increases.

Sure, most put forward a mix of relatively modest tax hikes on the wealthy and small tax cuts for everyone else. But on the stump they barely acknowledged these proposals, and never gave them the prominence Mondale did.

Not until this year. Among Democratic presidential candidates, raising taxes on the rich has become a thing. A big, loud, high-profile thing.

Which brings us back to Biden. Hes reportedly proposing a tax hike of $3.2 trillion over 10 years. Most, though not all, of those tax increases would be paid by high-income taxpayers and corporations. While the campaign has not yet released details, multiple published reports say it would, among other things, tax capital gains as ordinary income, raise the top individual income tax rate to its 2017 level of 39.6%, limit itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, and raise the corporate income tax rate to 28%, backstopped with a 15% minimum tax and a 21% rate on foreign profits.

A massive tax increase

By recent standards, Biden would be proposing a massive tax increase. But, of the three Democratic hopefuls registering double-digit national support in the (still-early) polls, Biden has the most modest tax hike by far. His supporters say raising taxes by about 1.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is prudent. His critics on the left say it is not nearly enough.

By her own count, his rival Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would raise taxes by more than $20 trillion over 10 years (7.5% of GDP). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed his own long list of tax hikes on the wealthy including a wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, and higher individual income tax and capital gains tax ratesto pay for his expansive spending agenda.

Suddenly, raising taxeson the rich at leasthas become a box Democrats feel the need to check. Given the lack of real public interest in controlling the burgeoning budget deficit, Democrats might have gotten away with ignoring the cost of their health care, education, housing, and environmental programs, and not highlighting their proposed tax hikes at all. After all, President Trump and the Republicans ignored the deficit with their $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2017.

Bragging on tax hikes

But, heres the thing: Most Democrats running for president dont seem to want to downplay their proposed tax hikes. Rather, they want to brag on raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Not just as a means to an endfiscal prudencebut as an end in itself.

Public opinion surveys suggest this approach isnt as bad an idea as it was in Mondales day. Most Americans feel the taxes they pay generally are fair, but believe the wealthy and corporations are not paying enough.

President Trump, of course, is unlikely to make fine distinctions about just whose taxes the Democrats would raise. Instead, hell likely propose new tax cuts of his own and blast his opponent for proposing the biggest tax increases in history. (Not true in Bidens case; true for Sanders and Warren, but only if you ignore the taxes the U.S. raised to fight World War II.)

Changing the dynamic

Mondale made his tax vow at the Democratic convention in July 1984, when he already was well behind Reagan in public opinion polls. If it wasnt quite an act of desperation, it was an aggressive effort to change the dynamic of the campaign. It did that, but not in a good way. Instead of the usual postconvention bump, Mondales support sagged.

Of course, the current race is not the same. In December 1983the same point in that election cycle as we are todayReagan was polling at above 50 percent. Trump is mired in the low 40s and facing impeachment. So far, at least, all of the leading Democrats beat him in the popular vote in a head-to-head race.

The question for Democrats will be whether the proposed tax hikes on the rich that play so well among the Democratic base will have legs in a general election. Well soon find out whether 2020 really is so different from 1984.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats In Love With Big Tax Hikes Might Do Well To Remember Walter Mondale - Forbes

Youve heard how South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is coming on strong in Iowa. Youve heard how New Hampshire is a free-for-all. And youve heard about former Vice President Joe Bidens firewall in Nevada and especially South Carolina.

But the Democratic primary wont end after those four states, especially if no clear winner emerges from them. That means the 16 states and territories that vote on March 3 Super Tuesday could be critical to Democrats selection of a nominee; together they are estimated to be worth more than a third of Democrats pledged delegates.

Despite these places importance, though, theres been relatively little coverage of which candidates might have an advantage there. Of course, plenty will probably change between now and Super Tuesday. In addition to the normal fluctuations in the horse race, the results in the first four states will likely winnow the field, too. But I still think its worthwhile checking in on the polling in some important March states to see what the race looks like now.

Appropriately given its outsized number of delegates, California has been one of the most frequently polled states over the past two months:

Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

And the polls there have shown some stark disagreements: Some have given Biden a solid lead, while others find a decisive edge for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and the most recent found Sen. Bernie Sanders in a virtual tie for first. A simple polling average shows Warren at 24 percent, Biden at 22 percent and Sanders at 19 percent. If those are their final percentages in California, the states huge trove of 416 delegates (the most of any one primary or caucus) would be split three ways. But, again, its still early.

Notably, Buttigieg is only averaging 9 percent in California, which is another reason to believe, at least at this stage, that he might have trouble building on potential strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. And its not in the table, but home-state Sen. Kamala Harris averaged 8 percent across these seven polls before she dropped out, so whoever picks up her support in the Golden State could alter the shape of the race, too.

Texas has the second-biggest delegate haul (228) of both Super Tuesday and the entire primary calendar, but unlike California, signs point to a front-runner: Biden (although, with only two polls conducted in the state in the last two months, we dont have the clearest picture of the race there).

Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

After all, only the most recent poll from the University of Texas at Tyler was conducted after former Rep. Beto ORourke, a native son of Texas, exited the race. And he got 14 percent in that YouGov poll, so a fair number of voters may still be up for grabs in the Lone Star State.

Continuing down the line, the third-most important Super Tuesday state in terms of delegates is North Carolina with 110.

Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

Weve gotten several polls in the Tar Heel State in the last two months, with all five indicating that Biden has a healthy lead. This should come as no surprise in a state that, like South Carolina, has a large base of black voters. In 2016, the Democratic primary electorate was 38 percent nonwhite.

But beyond those three delegate-rich states, we dont have a lot of recent Super Tuesday polling. In Virginia (99 delegates), the most recent poll was conducted almost three months ago. And while it showed Biden with a comfortable lead, demographically the state is also fertile ground for Warren or Buttigieg, given that college-educated whites constituted almost half of its 2016 Democratic primary electorate. Indeed, Massachusetts, Super Tuesdays fifth-biggest prize with 91 delegates, has an even higher share of college-educated white voters, and Warren led there by 15 points in the most recent poll from mid-October. But of course, Massachusetts is also Warrens home state, which could be a factor here as well. That said, she also took 25 percent and first place in the most recent poll of Minnesota (75 delegates), in which home-state Sen. Amy Klobuchar also received a respectable 15 percent.

Beyond that, Super Tuesday is a black box. There hasnt been a survey of Colorado (67 delegates) since August. Tennessee (64 delegates), Alabama (52 delegates) and Oklahoma (37 delegates) havent been polled since July, although demographically the first two at least should be good fits for Biden. Meanwhile, Arkansas (31 delegates) and Utah (29 delegates) havent seen any polls.

October did bring us two surveys of Maine, but they disagreed as to whether Biden or Warren was leading, but considering only 24 delegates are at stake, it probably wont be what makes or breaks Super Tuesday for a candidate. Same with Vermont (16 delegates), Democrats Abroad (13 delegates) and American Samoa (six delegates), where there are also zero polls although we can probably be pretty confident that Sanders will win his home state. (He has a 65 percent approval rating there and won 86 percent there in the 2016 primary.)

In summary, it looks like Biden and to a lesser extent Warren would start out with the advantage on Super Tuesday. Biden leads in two of the three biggest states (Texas and North Carolina), plus probably multiple Southern states (Tennessee, Alabama, maybe Virginia and Arkansas). Warren likely leads in two mid-size states (Massachusetts and Minnesota) but also figures to amass a significant delegate haul from California, which currently looks like a jump ball. And while we can only say with confidence that Sanders is favored to win one state, he definitely has a chance to pick up plenty of delegates by finishing a respectable second or third in many other places.

The further out you go on the calendar, theres even more good news for Biden. One week after Super Tuesday, Michigan (125 delegates) will be the big prize, and Biden leads in an average of the three polls taken there in the last two months:

Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

Beyond that, Biden is also ahead for now in Florida (219 delegates), Illinois (155 delegates), Ohio (136 delegates) and Arizona (67 delegates) for the March 17 primaries:

Polling in Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Arizona for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

Then, on March 24, Georgia (105 delegates) will vote, and Biden currently has a commanding lead there, too:

Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

As for the states that will vote in April or later, most of them have seen no recent polling and arguably, this is pretty justifiable, since the race is so unpredictable that deep into the calendar. Its quite possible Biden or another candidate will have sewn up the nomination by this point anyway. But if not, look for a few states to be the differentiators. For example, Wisconsin (77 delegates) is set to vote on April 7, and recent polls show a very unsettled race there:

Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

The last big delegate haul of the primary will be on April 28, when New York (224 delegates) and Pennsylvania (153 delegates) go to the polls, and if trends hold steady, this day could be a shot in the arm for Biden: He had a 10-point lead over Warren in New York per a Siena College poll from mid-November, and he has an 11-point lead over her in an average of Pennsylvania polls conducted entirely or in part since Oct. 1:

Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Source: Polls

Of course, by this point in the race, Id be surprised if there are more than two candidates left standing, so there may be a chance for, say, Warren to consolidate anti-Biden support and win these states, too. Like a real-life choose-your-own-adventure book, the primary could still unfold along hundreds of paths. But its also important to remember there are several massive states still to vote after Iowa (41 delegates), New Hampshire (24 delegates), Nevada (36 delegates) and South Carolina (54 delegates) and right now, Biden has far more delegates waiting for him in those states than any candidate is likely to amass in February.

View original post here:
Whos Leading The Democratic Primary In Super Tuesday States? - FiveThirtyEight

CELEBRATING ONE YEAR OF FOX NATION -- FOR A LIMITED TIME, SIGN UPAND GET 35% OFFWITH PROMO CODE: CELEBRATE

Retired Lt. Col. Oliver North said history appears to be repeating itself, as Democrats in the House held more hearingsMonday in their impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

North, who served on National Security Council staff in the Ronald Reagan administration, argued that Democrats have been just as determined to impeachTrumpas they were intent on removing Reaganfrom office.

"Back in the 1980s in the aftermath of Grenada, there were threats to impeach Ronald Reagan and it came from the speaker of the House... Tip O'Neill," said North on Fox Nation's "Deep Dive" on Monday.

Top Democrats "gathered together," North said."And, they said, 'We're going to find a way to get rid of this cowboy'... They did not like President Reagan."

On Nov.11, 1983, seven HouseDemocratsintroduced a draft resolution toimpeach Reagan, arguing that hehad committed a high crime or misdemeanor by"ordering the invasion of Grenadain violation of the Constitution," among other charges.Reagan had greenlitthe operation after a series of coups replaced Grenada's democratically-elected government with a pro-Soviet military regime.

The impeachment resolution failed.

WHEN DEMOCRATS TRIED TO IMPEACH RONALD REAGAN: NEW DOCUMENTARY

"Of course, they got all they ever wanted in November of '86, the Iran-Contra affair was exposed and they knew that they had it,"continued North, referring to the scandal over theReagan administration's funneling of arms-sales proceeds torebel forces in Nicaragua, known as the Contras. Northwas convicted on three counts, which were later dismissed,for his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair.

"Just like this whole thing with finding out that [Trump]had a conversation with another foreign leader. They've got their hook," he contended, drawing aparallelbetween 1986 and today.

"At the end of the day, they held a hearing in the summer of'87... and they had theirbacksides handed to them. A Navy admiral and a Marine lieutenant colonel said, 'You're not going to get us to do the wrong thing here and accusethe president of it,'" he said in reference to former Reagan National Security Adviser John Poindexter and himself.

"Then, the House of Representatives, they looked at it and said, 'Oh, my God, we're not going to put those two guys back on the stand in an impeachment trial in the Senate. Are you guys nuts?' and walked away from itcompletely."

In conclusion, North predicted theDemocrats would find themselves empty-handed at the end of this impeachment process.

He said witnesses will "testify in that Senate trial that are not only going to exonerate Donald Trump as president of the United States -- they're going to encourage Americans who didn't vote for him last time to get out and vote for him because of the abuse of what's going on right now," he concluded.

To watch all of"Deep Dive"go toFox Nationand sign up today.

CELEBRATING ONE YEAR OF FOX NATION -- FOR A LIMITED TIME, SIGN UPAND GET 35% OFFWITH PROMO CODE: CELEBRATE

Fox Nationprograms are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers.Go to Fox Nationto start a free trial and watch the extensive library from Tomi Lahren, Pete Hegseth, Abby Hornacek, Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Greg Gutfeld, Judge Andrew Napolitano and many more of your favorite Fox News personalities.

Follow this link:
Democrats determined to impeach Trump, as they were with Ronald Reagan, Oliver North argues - Fox News

Ms. Warren disagrees. In the latest Democratic debate, she said the spending programs funded by her wealth tax would be transformative for workers. Those plans would raise wages, make college tuition-free and relieve graduates of student debt, she said, adding, We can invest in an entire generations future.

An emerging group of liberal economists say taxes on high-earners could spur growth even if the government did nothing with the revenue because the concentration of income and wealth is dampening consumer spending.

We are experiencing a revolution right now in macroeconomics, particularly in the policy space, said Mark Paul, an economist who is a fellow at the liberal Roosevelt Institute in Washington. We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy to influence public policy and distort markets to their advantage.

Taken together, Ms. Warrens proposals would transform the role of federal taxation. If every tax increase she has proposed in the campaign passed and raised as much revenue as her advisers predict a contingency hotly debated among even liberal economists total federal tax revenue would grow more than 50 percent.

The United States would leap from one of the lowest-taxed rich nations to one of the highest. It would collect more taxes as a share of the economy than the Netherlands and only slightly less than Italy.

Mr. Sanderss plan envisions a similarly large increase in tax levels. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.s proposals are much smaller in scale: He would raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations by $3.4 trillion over a decade, in order to fund increased spending on health care, higher education, infrastructure and carbon emissions reduction.

If Ms. Warrens tax program is enacted, said Gabriel Zucman, an economist at Berkeley who is an architect of her wealth tax proposal, in my view, the most likely effect is a small positive effect on growth, depending on how the revenues are used.

Continue reading here:
Could Tax Increases Speed Up the Economy? Democrats Say Yes - The New York Times