First 2016 Iowa poll: Hillary 58, Biden 17, Cuomo 6
posted at 10:24 pm on November 8, 2012 by Allahpundit
C’mon, I had to post it.
According to Nate Silver, Hillary now has a 86.6392 percent chance at the nomination. (Kidding, kidding.)
The PPP poll, which was shared exclusively with POLITICO, shows Clinton taking 58 percent of the Iowa vote in a hypothetical presidential run. Vice President Joe Biden trails far behind at 17 percent, followed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at 6 percent and Massachusetts Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren at 3 percent…
If Clinton doesn’t run, Biden would jump into the lead with a less-commanding 40 percent of the vote, with Cuomo rising to 14 percent and Warren up to 9 percent. In the event that neither Clinton nor Biden runs, Cuomo draws 30 percent to Warren’s 13 percent, with 46 percent of voters unsure who they’d support…
From the list of pols PPP tested, Biden and O’Malley are viewed as most likely to run for the White House in four years.
As I recall, she led Obama by something like 70-10 in the earliest days of the 2008 primary, when he was a total unknown. She wouldn’t have to worry about that next time with Biden; he’s a joke candidate, and there’s no way a pol as generic as O’Malley is going to give Hillary trouble. The only potential threat to her if she runs (which she’s said she won’t, but whatever) is Cuomo, and there’s already plenty of angst in his camp over what she might or might not do. I think he’d be doomed if he challenged her: She’s widely popular, she has all sorts of government experience, she’s a bona fide feminist icon, and there’ll be lots of sympathy for her for having lost so narrowly last time. (Plus lots of gratitude for her having been a good soldier and served as Secretary of State.) Obama would be duty bound to endorse her after what Bill Clinton did for him this year. Who’s going to pass on the chance to crown the first woman nominee in American history in order to nominate Andrew Cuomo — who, by the way, is cultivating the same sort of center-left cred that the Clintons are known for? Realistically, if she runs, she’s the nominee.
On the GOP side, hmmmm:
— Alex Conant (@AlexConant) November 8, 2012
Rubio and Jeb Bush will obviously be frontrunners given their outreach to Latinos and the GOP’s newfound demographic angst. I doubt they’d both run, though, and if they did, I have a hard time imagining Republicans wanting to bet their new-and-improved party on a guy named “Bush.” The other serious contender is Ryan, although as a failed VP nominee he’ll be tainted somewhat by the loss (especially in Florida, which most people thought would go Republican this time). If the long-awaited fiscal crisis finally strikes, all bets are off and his profile will soar as a potential savior. But even if it doesn’t, I hope he runs just so that I can see where his Kemp-ian instincts take him. This sounded bold, and interesting:
As part of his role, Ryan had wanted to talk about poverty, traveling to inner cities and giving speeches that laid out the Republican vision for individual empowerment. But Romney advisers refused his request to do so, until mid-October, when he gave a speech on civil society in Cleveland.
As one adviser put it, “The issues that we really test well on and win on are not the war on poverty.”
Ryan did not complain publicly. But he later had reason to.
I’d like to hear more of that, and especially more of what he has in mind to help the middle class. Right now, the GOP’s looking for a magic bullet to win back some of the Latino vote, either by making a deal on immigration reform or having a Latino nominee. Both would help, but an economic agenda aimed squarely at the middle class would help more across the board, with Latinos too. Hope Ryan figures that out soon.