GOP Candidates Launch A New Attack On Social Security

               The Republican candidates for president have joined in the fight against Social Security now. Of course they will tell you they are trying to "save" Social Security, but that is a lie. They know they can't do away with it in one fell swoop, so they have decided to kill it by whittling away at it until it is no longer viable, and no longer protects seniors from poverty.

The first salvo in this new attack on Social Security was fired by Chris Christie. He says the retirement age for Social Security should be raised to 70. And his fellow GOP "moderate", Jeb Bush, was quick to jump in and agree. I have no doubt that many other GOP hopefuls will soon join these two in wanting to raise the retirement age.

Now I understand why this might seem like a good idea to these two buffoons. Neither of them has ever had to do hard physical labor to feed their families, and neither have the Wall Street tycoons and corporate CEO's who contribute to their campaigns. I don't doubt it would be easy to delay retirement until the age of 70, if all you had to do is sit behind a desk and bark out orders to the people who do the real work.

But raising the retirement age to 70 is a ridiculous idea, and it would be disastrous for millions of American workers. That's because they support their families by doing back-breaking physical labor -- and their bodies will simply not hold out for another 5 years to get to retirement. Many of them are lucky to get to 65/66. And there are other occupations where, while they don't do a lot of physical labor, their job depends on being physically fit and mentally sharp -- jobs like being a policeman or a fireman. Do we really want people in professions like these to have to stay on the job until age 70? Wouldn't that not only put them in danger, but also the public they serve?

Raising the retirement age is a silly and mean-spirited idea -- and it has nothing to do with "saving" Social Security. Social Security could easily be fixed for many decades to come by simply removing the cap on the amount of income subject to FICA taxes (payroll taxes). That would not affect working and middle class citizens at all (since they already pay the maximum). It would only affect the rich, who pay a much smaller percentage of their income than everyone else does.

But the Republicans don't really want to fix Social Security -- they want to destroy it. They have never liked it. They don't like it, and want to destroy it, because truly fixing it would require their rich benefactors to pay their fair share in taxes -- and they never want the rich (or the corporations) to have to pay taxes.

Don't be fooled by this new "concern" for Social Security by the Republican hopefuls. It's just the same old anti-Social Security lie.

(The caricatures of Chris Christie and Jeb Bush above are by DonkeyHotey.)

Clinton Vs. GOP Hopefuls IN Colorado, Iowa, And Virginia

The Quinnipiac University Poll recently looked at three states that are considered by many to be "swing states" in the 2016 election -- Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia. The GOP starts off behind the Democrats in blue state/red state electoral votes by a significant margin, which means these are three states that the Republicans really need to win to have a chance in the 2016 election.

And the results were mixed for the GOP. For instance, Paul seems to be doing OK in Colorado and Virginia, but does poorly in Iowa. Bush does well in Virginia, but not so good in Iowa and Colorado. Walker does fairly well in Colorado, but not so well in Iowa and Virginia. And Huckabee and Christie trail in all three states.

If the election was held today, I believe Hillary Clinton would easily be elected president. There's still a long time before the 2016 election, but the Republicans have a long way to go to catch up with Clinton (and will probably damage each other in the primary campaign next year, while Clinton will sail through the primaries virtually unscathed).

In Colorado, 1,049 registered voters were questioned between February 5th and 15th, and the survey has a margin of error of 3 points.

In Iowa, 1,089 registered voters were questioned between February 5th and 15th, and the survey has a margin of error of 3 points.

In Virginia, 1,074 registered voters were questioned between February 5th and 15th, and the survey has a margin of error of 3 points.

Hillary Currently Leads All The Leading GOP Candidates

This is exactly why I think Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. The most important thing is to keep an extremist GOP candidate out of the White House (and they are all extremists -- even those touted by the media as being "moderates", like Bush and Romney).

Hillary currently leads all the leading GOP candidates by double-digits -- and that's before those Republicans start beating up on each other in the primaries. This is the kind of margin that could easily be called a "blowout", and could approach "mandate" status (especially if a bunch of Democrats could be sent to Congress on her coattails).

This is from a new ABC News / Washington Post Poll. It was conducted between January 12th and 15th of a random national sample of 1,003 adults, and has a margin of error of 3.5 points.

Here are some of the reasons they give for Hillary's large margin:

The poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds several reasons that Clinton leads all five potential GOP candidates tested:

•   She’s stronger in her base, backed by nine in 10 or more Democrats who are registered to vote, as well as by at least eight in 10 liberals and about six in 10 moderates.
  
  
•   As with Barack Obama, the recovery helps Clinton. About three-quarters of registered voters who rate the economy positively support her, and she leads overwhelmingly among those who say they’ve gained ground financially under Obama’s presidency. But she also leads, by 16 to 20 points, among those whose finances have just held steady
  .
  
•   Clinton has a strong advantage among those who see income inequality as a major problem, and she runs essentially evenly vs. these potential Republican nominees among those who think it’s a problem, but not a major one. She trails only among those who don’t think the income gap is a problem – just 16 percent of registered voters.
  
  
•   Women favor Clinton by 20- to 24-point margins, men by non-significant 2- to 7-point margins. She’s also strong among racial and ethnic minorities, adults under 40 and lower- income voters. 
  

Clinton Leads Possible GOP Candidates In Recent Polls

 (This caricature Of Hillary Clinton is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

One of my favorite websites is that of RealClearPolitics. They keep track of all the most recent polls on a wide variety of political subjects. And recently, they started keeping track of how Hillary Clinton (the most likely Democratic nominee at this time) stacks up against the leading Republican possible presidential nominees.

The charts below show their findings of the most recent polls. The polls are listed from least recent on the left side to most recent on the right side of the chart. Probably the most important figure is on the far right side of the charts. That is the RealClearPolitics average of all the most recent polls -- and in the last couple of elections, that average has turned out to be closer to the actual outcome than any of the individual polls.

It's still a long time before we even know who the party nominees are going to be, but right now Hillary looks pretty good when paired with any of the leading Republican hopefuls.

Republicans Still Like Romney - But The Public Doesn't

Recently, there has been a fair amount of talk about the possibility of Mitt Romney running for president again on the Republican ticket. This is probably because of the failure of any of the other candidates to separate themselves from the rather large pack of possible candidates (or show they would stand a chance of competing with Hillary Clinton if nominated). I have already posted about one poll which showed that right now Romney would have a small lead among all the candidate (but even though he had a lead, he only got about 21% support).

Now there is a new poll showing Romney still has support among the Republican base. It is the YouGov Poll, taken between October 18th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults with a margin of error of about 4 points. They didn't ask who the base Republican voters would vote for, but instead asked them their opinion of Romney (and the other leading candidates). It turns out that Romney has a significantly higher favorable rating among Republicans than any of the other candidates do (an 8-9 point margin, slightly exceeding the survey's margin of error).

This would seem to say a Romney candidacy is a possibility. But should the Republicans nominate him again? The answer is probably NO. While Romney is viewed very favorably by Republicans, that does not extend to the general public. Look at the charts below, and you will see that Romney has an upside-down rating among the general public (36% favorable and 47% unfavorable). And almost every demographic group has that unfavorable opinion of Romney. Only one group (those 65 & older) give him a significant favorable rating. Two other groups, whites and rich people, are split in their opinion of him (with the difference being within the survey's margin of error).

The news for Romney goes downhill from there. Every single demographic group (even the elderly, the whites, and the rich) say they do NOT want Romney to run for president again. And by large margins, every single demographic group, by large margins, thinks Hillary Clinton would easily beat Romney if he was the Republican candidate.

I personally don't think Romney will run, and after the 2012 fiasco, I seriously doubt the teabaggers (who control the GOP) will let him get the nomination again. Even though no clear favorite has emerged yet, I just don't think a Romney candidacy is viable (at least not in 2016).

Clinton Numbers Look Better Than Other 2016 Hopefuls

It is just an electoral fact that voters most likely will vote for a candidate they know (familiarity) and like (favorability). Considering this, the Gallup Poll questioned 1,013 randomly chosen national adults between July 7th and 10th on their familiarity with and favorability for the top 16 presidential candidate (5 Democrats and 11 Republicans). The poll has a margin of error of 4 points.

The numbers should make Hillary Clinton feel good about her chances of being elected president (assuming she decides to run). Here numbers are far better than those of anyone else. About 91% of the population is familiar with Clinton (26 points better than her closest possible GOP opponent), and 55% view her favorably (about 22 points better than the most popular Republican). In fact, Clinton was the only candidate to score above the 50% mark in favorability.

The pleasant surprise for Democrats is that Joe Biden, while he didn't come close to Clinton's numbers, was able to outpace all the Republicans in both familiarity and favorability. He scored 15 points better than the closest Republican in familiarity, and 5 points better than the closest Republican in favorability. Both of those numbers exceed the margin of error of the survey.

New Jersey Voters Say No To "Christie For President"

A candidate for the presidency that cannot even carry his own home state is not a candidate that can be elected. That is more than just a saying -- it has been a reality in modern elections. And if the Republicans nominate New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2016, they will be fighting against that tradition -- just like in 2012 (when Romney couldn't carry any of his "home" states -- Massachusetts, Michigan, California).

It seems that the people of New Jersey don't think Christie would make a good president (57%), and they don't want him to run for the office (52%). That's the verdict of a new Quinnipiac University Poll (taken between April 2nd and 7th of 1,356 New Jersey voters, with a margin of error of 2.7 points).

And the bad news doesn't stop there for Christie. Less than half of New Jersey voters think he is honest and trustworthy (43%), and a clear majority (56%) think the in-house investigation that cleared the governor in the George Washington Bridge closing was just a whitewash, and not a real investigation.

2016 Presidential Preferences Of Mississippi Republicans

I have been posting on the early preferences for the 2016 presidential race as polls question voters on the races this year in each state, and toss in as an extra question the current choices for the 2016 presidential race. Now it is Mississippi's turn.

Harper Polling surveyed 570 likely Republican primary voters in Mississippi between April 3rd and 5th. The survey has a margin of error of about 4.1 points.

Frankly, I was a little surprised at the results of this poll. Mississippi is one of those states where the Republican Party is under complete control of the teabaggers (with 57% saying they supported the ideals of the Tea Party, and only 21% saying they opposed them) -- so I would have expected a teabagger candidate (like Cruz or Paul) to be the early favorite. But that's not what the poll showed. The current leader among Mississippi Republicans is Jeb Bush (a conservative for sure, but probably the most moderate conservative among the candidates).

And while other state polls have shown the candidates bunched together with no real leader, this poll shows Bush as a clear leader -- with a 17 point gap between him and the second place finishers (Cruz and Christie). That's a much bigger lead than can be accounted for by the margin of error.

Of course this poll was taken before Bush came out in the last few days and blasted the Republican Party's stance on immigration reform. The teabaggers don't want immigration reform. They just want to station thousands of troops on our southern border to keep minorities out, and to deport as many minorities as possible. Bush's stance on immigration reform is courageous (considering his party membership), but I'll bet it is going to cost him a lot of support.

Quinnipiac Poll Names The "Hottest" Politician In The U.S.

I thought this survey, done of 1,578 registered voters between March 26th and 31st, by the Quinnipiac University Poll was rather interesting. They didn't ask those voters who they support, or even who they might vote for in an election. Instead, they asked them to assign a number to each politician from 1 to 100 (with o being the most negative and 100 being the most positive). If a voter was not familiar with a politician, they were asked to give no number for that person. Then all the numbers were averaged (giving the results shown in the top chart above).

Quinnipiac said the politicians with the highest numbers were those with the most positive feelings from voters -- and were the "hottest" politicians right now. I think the politician with the highest average score, and therefore the "hottest" politician, will probably surprise a lot of people. It was Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts).

Now don't misunderstand this result. It does not mean that Warren is going to march into the White House in 2016. Remember, this is the feelings only of those who are familiar with her -- and only 56% of the voters were familiar enough with her to give a number, while 99% were familiar enough with Hillary Clinton (who finished in second) to give a number. However, it does mean that Warren could be a player on the national scene in some future election, as more people get to know her.

Perhaps most interesting is the fall of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. As the second chart above shows, Christie was the hottest politician the last two times Quinnipiac asked voters to do this. But after the George Washington Bridge scandal, he has cooled off considerably -- falling all the way down to ninth place.

The results above are from the general public. When only the members of each party are queried, the numbers are quite different. Hillary Clinton is easily the hottest politician among Democrats -- and surprisingly, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is the hottest politician among Republicans (meaning he may be a stronger contender for the 2016 GOP nomination than many people think).

Here are the charts where only Democrats or Republicans were questioned:

Chris Christie Finds Himself Innocent

(The cartoon image above is by Bill Day at cagle.com.)

The first of several inquiries into whether New Jersey Governor Chris Christie ordered or knew of the George Washington Bridge closing as a political retaliation for a mayor refusing to support the governor. And the verdict is innocent -- Christie did not order, or even know about the bridge closing.

But don't get too excited (or angry) about this verdict, because no one believed this inquiry would find anything different. That's because this is the inquiry arranged by the governor himself, and done by a law firm known to be friendly to the governor. The lawyers conducting the inquiry said they had full access to all information, but that is questionable. They had access to what the governor gave them, and were not able to question those aides at the center of the scandal (including Christie aide Bridget Anne Kelly).

In other words, the governor's own inquiry (with only partial access to all the facts) found him innocent of any involvement. No surprise there. It would have been shocking if they had found otherwise. This is nothing more than a rather feeble attempt at a political white-washing (which cost the taxpayers in New Jersey over a million dollars).

Fortunately, there are other much more serious inquiries looking in to the bridge scandal -- and they will be looking at all the facts.

Chris Christie's Troubles Continue To Grow

(This caricature of Chris Christie is by the one and only DonkeyHotey.)

I haven't seen a potential candidate come apart faster than Chris Christie since Clayton Williams ran for governor of Texas in 1990. Williams started as a prohibitive favorite, and then his campaign disintegrated as he made mistake after mistake. Christie is doing the same, and it's destroying his credibility as a presidential hopeful.

It started with his attempt at payback for a mayor refusing to support his re-election. Christie (or his aides/appointees) closed lanes entering the George Washington Bridge at Ft. Lee, New Jersey -- causing massive traffic jams (and possibly taking the life of one heart attack victim whose ambulance was delayed getting to the hospital). Christie held a press conference, denying that he ordered (or even knew about) the lane closings.

Then came another accusation -- that he withheld funds designated for Hurricane Sandy relief to pressure the mayor of Hoboken into approving a private building venture in that city. This was followed by accusations of bullying by other New Jersey officials.

And the scandals just won't die. Now there is evidence that Christie was lying in the press conference where he denied knowledge of the lane closings. The man Christie appointed to serve on the Port Authority, David Wildstein, and the man who ordered the lane closings, said Christie lied to the public. He says Christie knew about the lane closings from the start, and he says he has the evidence to prove it. Also adding fuel to the fire is Christie's former campaign manager, Bill Stepien, who has said he will plead the Fifth Amendment if forced to testify about the lane closings.

A few months ago, Christie had the best favorability ratings of any Republican. That's not true any more (see chart below). Not that his ratings are now upside-down, and almost all groups give him a higher unfavorable rating than favorable. Only two groups (Republicans and Hispanics) give him a higher favorable than unfavorable rating -- and the ratings are very close among Republicans. The surprise (at least for me) is that Hispanics give him a good rating (45% favorable and 29% unfavorable). It seems that Hispanics are a lot kinder to Republicans than Republicans are to Hispanics.

This chart was made from a new YouGov Poll. The survey was done between January 25th and 27th of a national random sample of 1,000 adults, and has a margin of error of 3.9 points.

In Spite Of All The GOP Assurances, Christie Was Hurt By The Bridge-Closing Scandal

Ever since the scandal broke about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie closing lanes of the George Washington Bridge (and creating traffic jams) to retaliate against a political opponent, many Republicans have tried to say it was not the governor's fault -- and that he has not been hurt by it. But to say that, they have had to ignore several polls that say otherwise.

Now there is one more -- the NBC News / Marist Poll. This survey was done of 1,039 registered voters nationwide between January 12th and 14th (with a margin of error of 3 points). The poll shows that, even though it has not been conclusively proven he ordered the bridge lane closings, he has already dropped 10 points in a matchup with Hillary Clinton (the presumed Democratic nominee for president in 2016). He had seemed to be getting closer to Clinton on a national scale back in December -- trailing by only a 3 point margin. That margin is now 13 points.

This does not mean Christie can't make up that difference in the next two years. But that's a substantial drop in less than a month, and the story is far from over. The survey did show that Christie still has a slight lead over other Republican hopefuls (although he is well under 20%, meaning there is still no real favorite among Republicans). Christie was at 18% in December. That chart is below:

Christie Has Been Hurt - And His Troubles Aren't Over

Governor Chris Christie was already having problems with a possible bid for the presidency in 2016. Republican voters in the South (and much of the West and Midwest) consider him to be an "Eastern liberal", and are still mad at him for embracing President Obama after Hurricane Sandy hit his state. Now it looks like the George Washington Bridge scandal may actually have cost him more support.

The chart above was made from information gleaned from a new Rasmussen Poll (conducted on January 9th and 10th of 1,000 likely voters nationwide, with a margin of error of 3 points). The question asked of these voters was would they be more or less likely to vote for Christie in 2016 if it was proven that his office knew about the bridge lane closings. And since if Christie admits that his Deputy Chief Aide was involved, that seems like something that has already been proven.

Nearly one half of nationwide voters (48%) say they would be less likely to vote for Christie (and another 6% aren't sure). It seems to me that this scandal has put a serious dent in his ability to get the Republican nomination, or to win a general election in 2016 (if he could somehow wrangle that nomination). And this story is far from over.

But that's not his only problem. It seems that a new scandal is rearing its ugly head. Federal officials are investigating Christie over the possible misuse of federal disaster relief funds. He used some of that money to run tourism ads for the state of New Jersey (starring himself, of course). The problem is that those funds weren't meant to be used to promote tourism -- but to help the state rebuild after Hurricane Sandy.

It's looking more and more like Christie doesn't think rules apply to him anymore, now that he is governor of a large state -- and I shudder to think how he would abuse the power of the presidency if elected.

A Majority In New Jersey Don't Believe Christie's Denials

On Thursday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie held a news conference. The purpose of that conference was to salvage his political career after it had become public knowledge that at least one member of his staff and some of his political associates had in an act of political retaliation -- closing several lanes of traffic entering the George Washington Bridge to create traffic jams and cause difficulties for the mayor of Ft. Lee, New Jersey (who had refused to endorse Christie for re-election).

Christie denied any knowledge or participation in the political retaliation, and announced that he had fired the staff member who ordered it -- his Deputy Chief Aide, Bridget Anne Kelly. But Christie may not have solved his political problems with those denials. The Rasmussen Poll surveyed 800 likely New Jersey voters after the Thursday news conference, and a majority (54%) of the poll's respondents said they believed it was likely that Christie had knowledge of the retaliation (which means they believe it is likely that he had lied in the press conference). Only 36% think it is likely that Christie was telling the truth. The survey had a margin of error of 3.5 points.

But that's not the only problem for Christie that the poll revealed. A whopping 71% think this was probably not the only political retaliation that Christie's staff had been involved in (either with or without his knowledge), while only 17% think it is unlikely. And 56% of New Jersey voters think Christie should resign if proof is found that he had knowledge of the political retaliation (to only 29% who think he should not resign).

I don't know if Christie's political ambitions will survive this scandal or not, but it is obvious that he has taken a serious political hit with this story. And it's not over yet. The press will keep digging, and there will be hearings in the New Jersey legislature. It will be interesting to see what develops -- and how it affects his presidential aspirations.

The New Jersey "Bully" Is Exposed

(The photo above showing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie with his aide, Bridget Anne Kelly, is from the website NorthJersey.com.)

The story about the Ft. Lee (New Jersey) lane closings leading to the George Washington Bridge has just got interesting. Those lane closings jammed up traffic and caused many commuters long delays. Among those experiencing delays were emergency vehicles -- with one woman who had a heart attack dying because her ambulance was delayed so long.

New Jersey Democrats immediately blamed Governor Chris Christie for the closures, but Christie played it off as just a "traffic survey" and said he had nothing to do with it. That was exposed almost immediately since New York officials said they were not aware of any survey (and the two states share port authority duties, including roads leading to those bridges). But while there were serious suspicions, there was no evidence that Christie had anything to do with the lane closures.

That has now changed. E-mails have been discovered from Christie top aide Bridget Anne Kelly, and these e-mails make it clear that she was involved in ordering the lane closures, and it was being done as a retaliation to the mayor of Ft. Lee (who had refused to support Christie in his re-election bid).

Yesterday, Christie called a press conference and tried to distance himself from the charges that he had ordered the retaliatory action himself. He blustered that he knew nothing about it, and said he had fired Ms. Kelly for lying to him about the affair. Frankly though, this smells like Kelly is being offered up as a token victim (an aide willing to fall on her sword to protect the governor she served). People who know Ms. Kelly say she is not the type of person who would act without approval from her boss (Christie).

Christie is the type of governor who has a top-down administration -- meaning he has a firm control over what his aides and employees do in his name. It is hard to believe he knew nothing about this political retaliation, and if he didn't, why didn't he find out what had happened before it was exposed by the press (since the story is now more than 3 months old)?

It seems that Christie has a reputation in New Jersey, and its not a good one. Instead of the jolly person he exhibits in public, he is known to be thin-skinned and vindictive and quick to retaliate against anyone who has the audacity to oppose him. State Senator Barbara Buono, who ran against him in 2012, says many in New Jersey (including some Democrats) fear the governor, and keep quiet out of a desire to keep their name off a Christie "enemies list". In short, he is a bully -- and now he has been publicly exposed as such.

The real question now is whether this will hurt him in a run for the presidency in 2016. That's still a long way off, but it looks like this story may have strong legs and will be in the news for quite a while -- and you can be sure any possible GOP opponents won't hesitate to remind primary voters of it. Moderate Republicans are not going to like supporting a tarnished candidate -- and his enemies, the teabaggers, while they might have liked his retaliating against a Democrat, won't like his apologizing to that same Democrat. But I suspect he has hurt himself most among Independents, who are already disgusted with most politicians -- and no party nominee can be elected president without grabbing a majority of the Independent vote.

It will be interesting to see where this story goes in the coming weeks. I have a feeling that much more will be exposed, and it won't be good for the bully in the governor's mansion.

I'm Still Not Buying Christie As A Viable 2016 GOP Nominee

(The caricature above of Chris Christie is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

The political pundits, who are mostly based in New York and Washington, are crowing about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as being the leading GOP candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination, and some polls are even showing that. I am just not ready to buy that.

First of all, the states where Christie is the most popular are in the areas of the country that he would have no chance of winning in a general election -- the Northeast and the West Coast. There is no chance that Christie could beat either Clinton or Biden in these areas. In the areas ruled by Republicans, he doesn't do nearly as well.

In the Deep South, Christie would lose a Republican race for the nomination to several other candidates. And I believe the same is true in the Midwest, the Southwest, and most of the West. These areas are ruled by the teabaggers in the Republican Party, and those teabaggers consider Christie to be a big city liberal -- and they still haven't forgiven him for shaking hands with and saying nice things about President Obama after Hurricane Sandy.

Republicans weren't real happy with Mitt Romney in 2012, but they went with him because they accepted the argument that he had the best chance to win. They aren't going to do that in 2016. Too many of the teabagger-types are convinced that they lost in 2012 because their candidate wasn't conservative enough. They're going to fight for a Rand Paul/Paul Ryan/Ted Cruz prototype as their nominee (although many could probably support Jeb Bush if he ran).

It's still a long way off, and Christie might squeak out a win for the nomination like Romney did, but if that happened there is a good chance that many in the far-right of the GOP could go for a third party. Don't underestimate their dislike of Christie.

But I still don't think Christie can get the GOP nomination. The party is still just too far to the right in many areas of the country. Before I consider him a viable candidate, he's going to have to show that he can win some Republican states outside the Northeast -- and at least so far, he has not done that. A good example of this is the recent Public Policy Polling survey taken between December 12th and 15th of 540 GOP primary voters in Kentucky (with a 4.2 point margin of error). And Kentucky is not even a Deep South state.

The Newest (And Silliest) Anti-Hillary Myths

The few people who don't like Hillary Clinton have come up with a couple of new things lately. The first, reported by The New Republic, is that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) is seriously considering running for president against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries -- and that Warren could drain a lot of support away from Clinton (especially on the left). I just don't believe that.

Let me make one thing clear. I love Elizabeth Warren. I think she is one of the two best senators in Washington (with the other being Bernie Sanders of Vermont). She is doing a great job for the people, and someday might make a great candidate for president. But 2016 is not her time.

The thinking probably is that since Barack Obama defeated her in 2008, there is a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party -- and that those Obama supporters are now looking for a new champion to defeat Clinton. That is simply not true. While a small minority of Obama supporters (primarily from the party's left-wing) might like to see a more left-leaning candidate oppose Hillary, most do not. They were pro-Obama, not anti-Hillary. And they now believe that Hillary deserves her chance, because of the class way she handled defeat in 2008 and her excellent service as Secretary of State for President Obama.

The truth is that if Hillary Clinton wants the Democratic nomination in 2016, it is hers. Several polls have shown this, and now a new one verifies it again. It is the NBC News Poll done between November 7th and 10th of 1,003 nationwide adults, with a margin of error of 3.6 points (5.5 points among only Democrats and 5.8 points among only Republicans). It shows she has the clear support of at least 66% of all Democrats (and I suspect that would climb after she declares she is a candidate).

Elizabeth Warren is not a stupid person. She has to know she could not beat Hillary in 2016 -- and that her running would only siphon off a few voters and might hurt the party. For now, she is far more valuable in the Senate, where she serves as a watchdog on the excesses of Wall Street.

The second myth going around is that the Republicans have now found their savior, Chris Christie (thanks to his substantial victory recently in New Jersey). But there are a couple of big problems with that. The first is that it is highly unlikely he could win the Republican nomination. The teabaggers hate him, and they control the GOP in many states. Christie only has the support of about a1/3 of Republicans right now, while an equal number want someone else (and 37% want to wait and see who their choices are). That's some pretty underwhelming support.

And even if he was to somehow convince enough Southern, Midwestern, and Western Republicans that he would be the best nominee, he probably could not beat Clinton in a national race. In fact, the area of the country he is the strongest in (the Northeast), is where he would do the worst against Hillary Clinton. He probably is the GOP's best hope, and would do better against Clinton than many others in making it a closer race -- but as the wise men say, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It won't get you into the White House.

Many In GOP Say Cruz Is The Party's Leader

If anyone thought the Republican Party was in the process of moving back toward the center, this poll should dash those hopes. When Republicans were asked to name the current leader of their party, the most extreme right-wing nut in the U.S. Senate, Ted Cruz of Texas, was named by more than any other person. About 21% of Republicans now consider Cruz to be their leader (followed by Christie at 17%, Boehner at 15%, and Paul at 9%). While tradition is that the party's last nominee for president is the party leader, Mitt Romney was picked by only 8% of Republicans.

This should make Democrats ecstatic, because it shows the Republican Party is still far too the right of the general public. We know that Cruz wants to be the GOP nominee for president in 2016, and with his popularity in the party still growing, that nows seems to be a distinct possibility. And that is a gift for the Democratic Party. Not only would Hillary Clinton have a fairly easy time crushing Cruz in a head-to-head contest, but it would raise the chances of any other Democrat if Clinton chose not to run.

The chart was made with information contained in a new Public Policy Polling survey conducted between October 29th and 31st of 649 voters (34% of which were Republicans), and the poll had a 3.8 point margin of error.

Equality Is Now Legal In New Jersey

(Image is from the Facebook page of David Gerrold.)

In September, Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court ruled that New Jersey must allow same-sex marriages. She said the law allowing civil unions did not go far enough, since it sometimes allowed the denial of federal benefits -- and that meant same-sex couples were denied the equality they were guaranteed under the state constitution.

Governor Chris Christie immediately appealed her decision to the state's Supreme Court, and asked for an injunction to prevent the start of same-sex marriages in that state (which Judge Jacobson had ordered to be allowed). On Friday, the Supreme Court denied the state's request for that injunction. The court said:

". . .the state has not shown a reasonable probability that it will succeed on the merits" of the appeal.

"When a party presents a clear case of ongoing unequal treatment, and asks the court to vindicate constitutionally protected rights, a court may not sidestep its obligation to rule for an indefinite amount of time. Under those circumstances, courts do not have the option to defer."

"The State has presented no explanation for how it is tangibly or actually harmed by allowing same-sex couples to marry. It has not made a forceful showing of irreparable harm." 

The court did not deny the appeal (but only the temporary injunction), so the state could have continued the case. But Governor Christie could read the handwriting on the wall, and saw that the state's chance of winning the case was very remote at best -- so he has dropped the appeal.

That means New Jersey has now joined 13 other states (and the District of Columbia) in allowing legal same-sex marriages. The other 13 states are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A midnight on October 21st (Monday), the date ordered by Judge Jacobson, the state began allowing those marriages. Eight of the first same-sex marriages were officiated by New Jersey's new senator, Cory Booker.

But the fight for equality in this country is far from over. It will not be won until the other 36 states join this 14 in recognizing that the LGBT community should have the same rights as all other American citizens under the Constitution. Unfortunately, some states (especially in the Bible Belt) may have to be dragged kicking and screaming into constitutional compliance.

N.J. Judge Says Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates The State Constitution

(The image above is from the website of the New Jersey Star-Ledger.)

It looks like another state may soon be joining the ranks of those that allow same-sex couples to legally marry. On Friday, State Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled in favor of six same-sex couples, and granted them an emergency order directing the state of New Jersey to begin allowing same-sex marriages no later than October 21st. She wrote in her opinion:

"Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey constitution." 

Of course, Republican Governor Chris Christie disagreed with the ruling. He said the state would appeal the judge's ruling -- all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. But like other Republicans, Christie is trying to fight an idea whose time has come. That was verified by another poll just this last week (by a conservative business-oriented news service).

The survey was done by the Bloomberg News, and was conducted between September 20th and 23rd of 1,000 nationwide adults, with a 3.1 point margin of area. The chart below shows the results -- that a clear majority of Americans now support allowing legal same-sex marriages.