ChrisWeigant.com

Obama Poll Watch -- February, 2016

[ Posted Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 – 17:25 PST ]

Another Good Month For Obama

During his presidency, every year that Barack Obama's job approval rating has gone up in January, he has followed it up with an increase in February. This year was no different. After impressive gains to start the year off, Obama followed up with smaller (but still substantial) gains in February. As with last month, this is clearly visible on the new chart.

Obama Approval -- February 2016

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

February, 2016

The political news in February was, for the most part, dominated by the ongoing presidential race. The primary season finally began, and after the first four states voted all attention turned to Super Tuesday. Throughout it all, Obama wasn't in the news much himself, meaning there were no critical events (good or bad) during the month which impacted how the public felt about him.

The only really stunning political event to occur last month was the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. This only peripherally impacted the president, but will do so in much bigger ways over the next few months. The Republicans in Congress have vowed not to perform their constitutional duty of vetting anyone Obama nominates to the highest bench, which looks to be an enormous political fight throughout the entire election season. But it really didn't have a whole lot of impact in February, since Obama has yet to name anyone.

Other than that, it was a fairly quiet month politically. Notably absent was any sort of grandstanding and showdown over the budget -- an event that has taken place in Februarys past during Obama's term. The budget deal struck by the outgoing John Boehner still appears to be holding, for better or worse. Paul Ryan is quietly struggling with his own caucus over whether they're going to put a budget together for next year, but only political wonks have paid any attention to his problems.

As I mentioned last month, I think there's a subtle boost to Obama's job approval rating coming from the Democratic presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton (in particular) is running essentially to be the third term of Obama's agenda. This was prominently on display during the primary race in South Carolina, and will remain a focus of her campaign throughout the entire election. This may be having a positive background effect on Obama's poll ratings, but I should mention that this is based on nothing more than my own gut feeling.

For February, Barack Obama's monthly average poll rating improved by a healthy 0.8 percent, up to a total of 46.3 percent. His disapproval rating fell 0.6 percent to reach 49.6 percent. To put these numbers in their proper context, this is the highest his approval rating has been in the last 32 months. It is the lowest disapproval rating for the past 31 months. Obama is now regaining ground he lost when his second term "honeymoon" period with the public ended. That's pretty impressive, although he's still got a ways to go (when sworn into office the second time, Obama's approval was at 52.7 percent and disapproval at 42.6 percent).

 

Overall Trends

Let's take a closer look at Obama's entire second term. Normally I run these detail charts only going back a year, so that the movement of one month can be seen much clearer. The following chart instead shows Obama's entire second term, back to January of 2013.

Obama detail

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

As you can see, the falloff from the honeymoon period was pretty sharp, and bottomed out at the end of 2013 at barely over 41 percent. This coincided with both the government shutdown and the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare exchange website.

Obama then struggled throughout 2014 to even reach 44 percent approval, then fell back to the 41 percent range by the end of the year (when the midterm elections happened). However, he started off 2015 much stronger, jumping sharply up to the 45 percent level and holding fast there for almost the entire year. He briefly dipped down below 44 percent at the end of last year, but he's now recovered all the ground he lost in November and December -- and more.

As you can plainly see, last month was the first time since June of 2013 that Obama's managed to top 46 percent in his monthly approval average. This is all good news for Obama fans, but the news is in fact even better than it appears, showing a strong trend heading upwards as March begins.

After starting February strong (daily approval 46.9 percent), Obama got two bad polls added into the mix, mid-month. One was within the range of other recent polling, but one was so far outside this range (putting Obama at only 40 percent approval) that it dragged down his average for the entire second half of the month. These outliers have now disappeared from the rolling daily average at Real Clear Politics (where I get all my data, I should mention), putting him in very strong position heading into March. There is a very good chance Obama's approval numbers will get even better next month, to put this another way.

The truly impressive trend is that President Obama is on the verge of finally getting his approval/disapproval numbers "above water" once again (where his approval is higher than his disapproval). The gap between the two has been underwater since the middle of 2013, but this gap is shrinking fast. His worst underwater measure was in November of 2013 (after the Obamacare website fiasco), when his average monthly disapproval was 12.5 points higher than his approval. The lowest this gap got in 2014 was 7.7 percent, after which it rose back up to 12.0 percent. Last year was better for Obama, and the underwater gap ranged from 4.3 percent to 7.9 percent. This year, Obama started off by shrinking that 7.9 he hit in December down to 4.7 percent in January and then improving it to 3.3 percent in February.

It may be just a momentary blip in the charts, but his daily average numbers today are only 1.3 percent apart. With just a tad more improvement, Obama could see his daily numbers break above the waves at some point during March. This hasn't happened since June 7, 2013, so it would indeed be a milestone.

Of course, there are always fluctuations in the daily numbers, which is why we only use monthly averages for our charts. Even if Obama did get his numbers above water in the daily ratings, he would have to have an extraordinarily good month to do so in our monthly averages. Still, the fact that this is even a possibility is the best news Obama poll watchers have had in a very long time.

 

[Obama Poll Watch Data:]

Sources And Methodology

ObamaPollWatch.com is an admittedly amateur effort, but we do try to stay professional when it comes to revealing our sources and methodology. All our source data comes from RealClearPolitics.com; specifically from their daily presidential approval ratings "poll of polls" graphic page. We take their daily numbers, log them, and then average each month's data into a single number -- which is then shown on our monthly charts here (a "poll of polls of polls," if you will...). You can read a much-more detailed explanation of our source data and methodology on our "About Obama Poll Watch" page, if you're interested.

Questions or comments? Use the Email Chris page to drop me a private note.

 

Obama's Second Term Statistical Records

Monthly
Highest Monthly Approval -- 1/13 -- 52.7%
Lowest Monthly Approval -- 11/13 -- 41.4%

Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 12/13 -- 54.0%
Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/13 -- 42.6%

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 1/31/13 -- 52.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 12/2/13 -- 39.8%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 12/2/13 -- 55.9%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 2/24/13 -- 42.3%

 

Obama's Second Term Raw Monthly Data

[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]

Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)
02/16 -- 46.3 / 49.6 / 4.1
01/16 -- 45.5 / 50.2 / 4.3
12/15 -- 43.7 / 51.6 / 4.7
11/15 -- 44.4 / 51.3 / 4.3
10/15 -- 45.3 / 50.0 / 4.7
09/15 -- 45.6 / 50.3 / 4.1
08/15 -- 44.7 / 50.4 / 4.9
07/15 -- 45.7 / 50.0 / 4.3
06/15 -- 44.6 / 50.7 / 4.7
05/15 -- 45.4 / 50.0 / 4.6
04/15 -- 45.2 / 49.9 / 4.9
03/15 -- 44.9 / 50.8 / 4.3
02/15 -- 45.4 / 50.1 / 4.5
01/15 -- 44.8 / 50.5 / 4.7
12/14 -- 42.4 / 52.8 / 4.8
11/14 -- 42.0 / 53.4 / 4.6
10/14 -- 42.1 / 53.4 / 4.5
09/14 -- 41.5 / 53.5 / 5.0
08/14 -- 41.6 / 53.0 / 5.4
07/14 -- 41.8 / 53.6 / 4.6
06/14 -- 42.4 / 53.4 / 4.2
05/14 -- 44.0 / 51.7 / 4.3
04/14 -- 43.4 / 52.1 / 4.5
03/14 -- 42.9 / 52.8 / 4.3
02/14 -- 43.3 / 52.3 / 4.4
01/14 -- 42.7 / 52.7 / 4.6
12/13 -- 41.9 / 54.0 / 4.1
11/13 -- 41.4 / 53.9 / 4.7
10/13 -- 44.2 / 50.8 / 5.0
09/13 -- 43.9 / 50.8 / 5.3
08/13 -- 44.4 / 50.2 / 5.4
07/13 -- 45.3 / 49.2 / 5.5
06/13 -- 46.5 / 48.5 / 5.0
05/13 -- 48.3 / 46.9 / 4.8
04/13 -- 48.6 / 46.8 / 4.6
03/13 -- 48.5 / 46.3 / 5.2
02/13 -- 51.1 / 43.0 / 5.9
01/13 -- 52.7 / 42.6 / 4.7

 

Second Term Column Archives

[Jan 16], [Dec 15], [Nov 15], [Oct 15], [Sep 15], [Aug 15], [Jul 15], [Jun 15], [May 15], [Apr 15], [Mar 15], [Feb 15], [Jan 15], [Dec 14], [Nov 14], [Oct 14], [Sep 14], [Aug 14], [Jul 14], [Jun 14], [May 14], [Apr 14], [Mar 14], [Feb 14], [Jan 14], Dec 13], [Nov 13], [Oct 13], Sep 13], [Aug 13], [Jul 13], [Jun 13], [May 13], [Apr 13], [Mar 13], [Feb 13], [Jan 13]

 

First Term Data

To save space, the only data and statistics listed above are from Obama's second term. If you'd like to see the data and stats from Obama's first term, including a list of links to the full archives of the Obama Poll Watch column for the first term, we've set up an Obama Poll Watch First Term Data page, for those still interested.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

35 Comments on “Obama Poll Watch -- February, 2016”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update -

    Since I wrote this, RealClearPolitics has updated their own page. Obama's daily average is now even better, and he is only 0.9 percent underwater...

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I suppose that's something ...

  3. [3] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So, after tonight's debate can we start calling the Donald: Biggus Dickus?

    And his rallies could here forth be referred to as: Biggus Dickus Ejaculationus...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wrong answer.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, after tonight's debate can we start calling the Donald: Biggus Dickus?

    And his rallies could here forth be referred to as: Biggus Dickus Ejaculationus...

    Envy doesn't become you, Bashi.. :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Will Megan Kelly now be as widely hated by Republicans as Candy Crowley? Her fact checking was quite thorough and went way beyond Candy's. The next Fox debate could be quite embarrassing for Long Dong Drumpf if he was lying about his tiny hands and his yuge incontinent peepee.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Megan needs a new media outlet. She is too big for Fox News.

    Skipped this 'debate' - it is just a rerun of the earlier ones.

    Is The Donald is getting boring? That will probably hurt his polls more than Romney.

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The corporate media was calling Long Dong Drumpf "reasonable" and "presidential" after his Super Tuesday victory word salad. I hope we can get back to that narrative soon. This whole unpleasant hand size issue is just so yesterday.

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    More fun with Trump arithmetic and logic:

    Savings Trump is going to achieve by negotiating medicare drug payments (according to The Donald): $300B

    Total spent on drugs by medicare: $143B (includes Part B and Part D)

    So the drug companies are going to pay $157B into medicare and supply free drugs?

    Note: the total market for prescription drugs in the U.S. is $377B

    It took me less than 5 minutes to find these numbers.

    Why do people think Trump is a good business person? I deal with top business people and if you walked into mahogany aisle with a plan like this you'd be laughed out of the building, probably with a security escort.

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Regarding the Scalia vacancy, a truly centrist SCOTUS nominee would probably improve obama's numbers even more, as the media fight would make him look good and the senate leadership look bad. in contrast, if obama nominates someone very lefty, it would probably hurt his numbers. either way, barring major worldwide events, i see the nomination fight as the main thing that will impact obama's poll numbers. all the other political winds are currently being sucked into the GOP nomination singularity.

    JL

  11. [11] 
    dsws wrote:

    I've said that Trump's candidacy will not harm the Party. I still think that's the most likely outcome, but I now see a way in which it could.

    When no candidate has a majority, I say it's perfectly reasonable for delegates pledged to one candidate to support another candidate on the second ballot, according to their own judgment of what's best for the party, or their own judgment of what best represents the second-choice preference of the voters who sent them there -- or according to their candidate's endorsement of another candidate. There's no reason they should have to support the plurality winner.

    But that's what I say. To supporters of the plurality winner, it would look like a betrayal of democracy, of their duty as delegates, and of their country. It would look as though there must have been some sort of a corrupt bargain. The New Corrupt Bargain would no more be an actual corrupt bargain than the Corrupt Bargain was. But that wouldn't matter any more now than it did then.

    The formerly-apolitical TV fans who became new voters would become swing voters. The ones Trump felt he couldn't afford to lose by promptly and unequivocally repudiating the KKK would become Republican or third-party voters. But (although they are indeed too large a bloc for Trump to afford to alienate) they aren't a majority of new Trump voters. The majority were apolitical, and just there for the show: they would become available to vote for any Democrat who could put on a good show. And my guess is that there are enough of them to swing elections.

  12. [12] 
    dsws wrote:

    Also, does anyone know details of the endorsement deal between Hillary and FedEx? Who's paying whom for the use of their logo?

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Additional note on Trump's Medicare Drug plan:

    Trump is also adopting a Democratic position here (even if he can't add up), as the restriction on the Federal government negotiating with drug companies for lower prices was a Republican restriction for their Big Pharma buddies.

    Ironically Medicaid is allowed to negotiate, but when Part D became law, a lot of patients were moved from cheap Medicaid drug prices to full retail drug prices under Medicare. Thanks Bush 2 and the Republican congress!

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    More fun with Trump arithmetic and logic:

    Ya know... You seem to find a lot of fault with Trump's policies while on the other hand, claiming he hasn't put forth any policies..

    Funny, iddn't it.. :D

    Considering the soon-to-be-indicted (60 days! :D) trash that the Democrat Party is running... Well, you better get used to the idea of PRESIDENT TRUMP...

    :D

    Michale

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kevin Drum on Trumps Medical Plan:

    "I realize that criticizing a Donald Trump policy is pointless, but Trump's health care "plan" deserves a bit more attention. Say what you will about his immigration policies, but at least his written plan more-or-less matched his rhetoric. His health care plan doesn't even come close. Here are its six proposals:

    Allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Whatever you think of this idea, it only makes sense if you can truly buy a policy that's regulated by another state. Ramesh Ponnuru: "But the plan says that people should be allowed to buy insurance out of state only 'as long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements.' That defeats the whole purpose of the reform, and means either that Trump is coming out for the status quo or that whoever wrote his plan garbled it." Or that Trump has no idea what he's talking about.

    Allow individuals to "fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns." This may or may not be a good idea in concept, but implementing it as a deduction makes it meaningless for nearly everyone at the median wage or below. They already pay little or no income tax, so a deduction does them no good. This is why other Republicans have proposed doing this as a tax credit, which would benefit anyone. Even conservatives agree about this: "That’s not going to help," said Joe Antos, a conservative health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Allow individuals to use HSAs. Individuals have been allowed to set up HSAs since 2003. The only new wrinkle in Trump's plan is that an HSA can be used by any family member. This is trivial.

    Price transparency. This is fine. It won't do much to improve health care, but it's a good idea.

    Block grant Medicaid. This would accomplish nothing except, probably, to make health care worse. States tend to do everything they can to use Medicaid dollars for non-health purposes, and giving them total control over Medicaid would only make this worse. Also, it would eliminate the automatic increase in Medicaid spending during recessions, when it's needed most. Overall, this proposal would almost certainly result in less Medicaid spending and less effective Medicaid spending.

    Allow importation of prescription drugs. This is fine.

    Trump has been extravagant in his promises about health care: "I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people." He's said that he would cover everyone. He's said he would cover pre-existing conditions. He's said he wouldn't let people die in the streets. He's said he would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

    His plan includes none of that. He just flatly hasn't kept any of his promises. Instead he's offered up something that looks like a fourth grader cribbed it from other Republican plans without really understanding what they said. Even by GOP standards—which is a very low bar—his health care plan offers virtually nothing of substance. It's completely hollow.

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    Comment eaten. Shorter:

    "Trump has been extravagant in his promises about health care: "I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people." He's said that he would cover everyone. He's said he would cover pre-existing conditions. He's said he wouldn't let people die in the streets. He's said he would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

    His plan includes none of that. He just flatly hasn't kept any of his promises. Instead he's offered up something that looks like a fourth grader cribbed it from other Republican plans without really understanding what they said. Even by GOP standards—which is a very low bar—his health care plan offers virtually nothing of substance. It's completely hollow."

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/donald-trumps-big-lie-health-care

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do people think Trump is a good business person? I deal with top business people and if you walked into mahogany aisle with a plan like this you'd be laughed out of the building, probably with a security escort.

    Why did Democrats think Trump was such a good business person when he was a Democrat and giving them millions and millions in donations???

    This is Sarah Palin all over again...

    Democrats LOVED Sarah Palin... Her GOV approval ratings were the highest in the country and she enjoyed complete bi-partisan support... Right up until she was nominated for VP.. Then, the Left Wingery couldn't destroy her fast enough..

    So it is with Trump.. Democrats LOVED Trump and LOVED Trump's millions... Right up until he became the GOP Nominee... NOW Trump is evil incarnate...

    Liz, you asked before why I say everything is spin..

    It's because of hypocritical and hysterical crap like this that I am so cynical...

    How can you tell that a ideologue is spinning???

    Their lips/fingers are moving.. :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    How can you tell that a ideologue is spinning???

    Their lips/fingers are moving.. :D

    Present company excepted, of course. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is skipping CPAC...

    How stupid!!! How can he skip CPAC!!!

    CPAC is!!???? CPAC is....!!!!

    What's CPAC??

    :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    You are off again on this granfalloon "Democrats" as in "Democrats loved Sarah Palin", "Democrats loved Trump", etc.

    Firstly who are these "Democrats" because I am surrounded by people to vote for mostly Democratic candidates and I remember the "Who?" when Palin was announced on the 2008 VP shortlist. And those that did have an opinion thought Trump was a cartoon character ("You're fired" - no executive says that in the real corporate world; or his WWE stunts - can you see Warren Buffet rolling around on the floor with some guy in a cheesy suit?).

    Also, everybody took money from Trump - he even brags about it - when he was a side player. Even then he had with a big mouth and a big megaphone, so nobody was going to piss him off - what would be the point. Taking money from the rich is what politicians do (unless they have all the money they need on their own and intend to self fund like Trump claims he will).

    Also, if you remember the look on Trump's face at the White House Correspondent's dinner a few years ago when Obama roasted him, you would hardly claim that the country's top Democrat "LOVED" Trump.

    In fact, I think that unusual humiliation may be a large part of the reason Trump is running at all. Perhaps this isn't about America, or the little guy, this is about The Donald, as many people from all sides of the political (Mitt) and religious spectrum (The Pope) have been pointing out.

    Do you believe that Trump is doing this for anybody but Trump?

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you believe that Trump is doing this for anybody but Trump?

    Do you believe that Hillary is doing this for anybody but Hillary??
    :D

    Also, everybody took money from Trump -

    And no one had a problem with it when Trump had a -D after his name.. :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you believe that Hillary is doing this for anybody but Hillary??

    Yes. I think she has a mission to make a difference in the world. I think she sees wrongs she wants to right and people in pain she wants to help.

    I also think she wants to go down in history as the first female President, so there is definitely a personal angle.

    I think Donald just wants to feel important. If he wanted to do something for humanity he could have done a lot more than just decide he wants to come in at the top.

    This is one of Romney's 'bombshells' in Trump's tax returns - that he has given little or nothing to charity in his life. I've no idea if it is true or not, but it is the Republican Party that is bringing it up.

    Cue the sarcasm, because the right-wing meme is that Hillary is power mad, but I just don't see it.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes. I think she has a mission to make a difference in the world. I think she sees wrongs she wants to right and people in pain she wants to help.

    Of course you believe that of Hillary, but not of Trump..

    Because Trump has a -R after his name and Hillary has a -D...

    Cue the sarcasm, because the right-wing meme is that Hillary is power mad, but I just don't see it.

    Of course you don't...

    For the reason stated above...

    You are an ideologue... Republicans are evil incarnate and Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have to ask yourself..

    Why is Trump bringing so much excitement and so many tens of thousands of new voters out??

    And Democrat voting is depressed... probably because Democrats know that Hillary is going to be indicted within the next 60 days...

    Imagine ya'all's comments when THAT happens, eh? :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Webb has said he won't vote for Hillary, but he may vote for Trump...

    Since ya'all go crazy over GOP'ers saying they will vote Hillary, you (of course) will give the same import to what Webb says, right?? :D

    Apparently.... not...

    Color me surprised.. :^/

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Did Webb explain why he won't vote for Hillary and why he may vote for Trump?

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/wesley-pruden-how-could-everybody-get-it-so-wrong-/

    This is exactly why I take everything ya'all say about Trump with a HUGE grain of salt..

    Much like, I am sure, ya'all take everything I predict about SCOTUS rulings with a HUGE grain of salt..

    :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did Webb explain why he won't vote for Hillary and why he may vote for Trump?

    He did..

    He said that Hillary Clinton would simply be a 3rd Term of Barack Obama....

    Which, overwhelmingly, the American people DO NOT WANT...

    I just think it's noteworthy because everyone here latches on to the barest of innuendo that some obscure Republican says he won't vote for Trump and would vote Hillary instead..

    But when a PROMINENT Democrat says that he won't vote for Hillary, that he may vote for Trump???

    {{chiirrrrpppppp}} {{{chirrrrrrrrpppp}}}

    Nothing...

    I'll be out for the rest of the night. My lovely wife and I are heading out to celebrate 34 years of wed'ed bliss... :D

    See ya'all tomorrow... :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Haven't had a chance to look through these comments yet, but did want to point out today's numbers for Obama (from RCP):

    Approval - 47.9%
    Disapproval -- 48.0%

    That's as close to the crossover point as you can get...

    -CW

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Happy Anniversary to you both, Michale!

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's as close to the crossover point as you can get...

    I suppose that's something else ...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanx Liz.. :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws [11] -

    I dunno, depending on your definition of "corrupt" the original Corrupt Bargain (see: John Quincy Adams election in House, 1824) was pretty fishy. I mean, just sayin'...

    :-)

    If the nomination is "stolen" away from Trump at the convention, do you think he'd go third party? I do.

    dsws [12] -

    I've always thought her logo sucked. My wife disagrees. But here's what it says, visually, to me:

    We're going to take the whole Democratic Party to the right!

    Maybe I'm seeing things, I dunno...

    Heh.

    Michale [19] -

    OK, that was funny! Been awhile since I heard you poking fun at conservatives....

    :-)

    neilm [20] -

    Oooh! Nice use of "granfalloons"!

    Bokononist koan:

    Tiger got to hunt,
    Bird got to fly,
    Man got to sit and wonder
    "Why, why, why?"

    :-)

    Michale [28] -

    Happy anniversary!

    Give my best to Betina!
    (hope I remembered to spell that right)

    Anyone who could put up with you for (shudder) 34 years deserves a freakin' medal or something...

    :-)

    -CW

  34. [34] 
    dsws wrote:

    Henry Clay didn't want a barbarian on horseback as president. He despised the guy. It didn't take any quid pro quo to get him to throw his support behind the non-Jackson candidate with the most votes.

    If the nomination is "stolen" away from Trump at the convention, do you think he'd go third party?

    Depends on the narrative, but probably, yes. On the other hand, you'd think the <snark> wise elders </snark> of the Party would know that, and would let him have the nomination unless the narrative was such as to keep Trump from taking his newly-minted voters with him to independent-land.

  35. [35] 
    dsws wrote:

    It also depends on the difficulty of getting on the ballot at the last minute, which I don't know. My guess is that it's well-nigh impossible by the time of the convention.

Comments for this article are closed.