Fox poll highlights chasm between GOP base, establishment

pb-110506-jetman-12p.grid-6x2

In the latest post-debate polling from Fox News, Donald Trump remains the GOP frontrunner at 25 percent. Next is Ben Carson at 12 percent, then Ted Cruz at 10 percent.

Jeb Bush is at 9 percent, down from 15 percent before the debate.

It’s of course extremely early. As Bush adviser David Kochel told Politico, “I’ll start caring about the polls in January.” However, that doesn’t mean that the polling has nothing to tell us.

For example, if you were to pick the three candidates who appeal to those Republicans deeply frustrated with their party’s leadership and performance in Washington, who would you choose? I think you would pick Trump, Carson and Cruz.  They happen to be the three leading the Fox poll, and together, they pull 47 percent of the total.

Conversely, the three candidates most favored by the party leadership and big-money donors are Bush, Marco Rubio (at 4 percent, down from 13 percent in April) and Scott Walker (6 percent, down from 12 percent in April). Together, the establishment favorites now pull just 19 percent of the GOP primary vote, considerably less than Trump by himself.

That, more than the performance of any individual candidate, is the news out of the poll. That’s how deep the disenchantment runs among Republican voters who believe their leaders have grossly over-promised and under-delivered. As I wrote last week, “the realization is sinking in that they are being played, that the base has been promised many many things that the party has no intent or capability of delivering.”

It’s also worth noting that the three establishment favorites have all dallied to varying degrees with compromise on the issue of illegal immigration. Bush continues to advocate what amounts to full if gradual legalization, and both Walker and Rubio have been forced to retreat from a similar position.  As Trump reminded voters this weekend, Rubio had once been a co-sponsor of comprehensive immigration legislation in the Senate that the Donald called “nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.”

Trump made that comment in releasing his own policy proposals on immigration. In addition to building the border wall and making Mexico pay for it, he advocates deporting all illegal immigrants, including the so-called Dreamers brought here as young children. He wants to stop granting automatic citizenship to all those born on American soil, and he wants to temporarily halt the granting of additional green cards that allow legal immigrants to work here.

Give him credit: Trump knows what his target audience wants to hear, and he knows no shame in giving it to them. With those proposals, he is dragging the GOP even further to the right on immigration and making Bush even more exposed. Other candidates now have to choose whether to move right themselves or try to argue that Trump’s proposals are too extreme, and that latter option would seem to conflict with the mood of the base.

UPDATE: Scott Walker appears to have made his choice.

Reader Comments 0

1868 comments
bu2
bu2

CBS poll is pretty different from Fox except for Trump.  "Establishment" does better and Cruz does worse.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@barkingfrog 

I'm surprised the Greek Prime Minister has not summoned him to 

correct the Greek economy. 

**
Speaking of Greece, what do you think the current leaders of Greece should have done to correct their economy?

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@LeninTime @barkingfrog 

I wouldn't tell him anything that he hasn't been told a thousand times. And he would ignore it.

It's because it's not an intellectual problem. It's a class problem.

Based on your lack of wit, LT, I'd have to say you wouldn't begin to understand your own question, much less a proper answer. 

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

What you do not smell right now is Hillary Clinton's goose being cooked:

From the Wall St. Journal:

It is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than a year to keep “documents or materials containing classified information . . . at an unauthorized location.” Note that it is the information that is protected; the issue doesn’t turn on whether the document or materials bear a classified marking. This is the statute under which David Petraeus—former Army general and Central Intelligence Agency director—was prosecuted for keeping classified information at home. Mrs. Clinton’s holding of classified information on a personal server was a violation of that law. So is transferring that information on a thumb drive to David Kendall, her lawyer.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

There's more...

Moving up the scale, the law relating to public records generally makes it a felony for anyone having custody of a “record or other thing” that is “deposited with . . . a public officer” to “remove” or “destroy” it, with a maximum penalty of three years. Emails are records, and the secretary of state is a public officer and by statute their custodian.

The Espionage Act defines as a felony, punishable by up to 10 years, the grossly negligent loss or destruction of “information relating to the national defense.” Note that at least one of the emails from the small random sample taken by the inspector general for the intelligence community contained signals intelligence and was classified top secret.

To be sure, this particular email was turned over, but on paper rather than in its original electronic form, without the metadata that went with it. If other emails of like sensitivity are among the 30,000 Mrs. Clinton erased, that is yet more problematic. The server is now in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose forensic skills in recovering data in situations like this are unexcelled.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

...and still more...

The highest step in this ascending scale of criminal penalties—20 years maximum—is reached by anyone who destroys “any record, document or tangible object with intent to impede, obstruct or influence the proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter.”

So, for example, if Mrs. Clinton caused to be wiped out emails that might have been anticipated to be of interest to a congressional committee, such conduct would come within the sweep of the statute. That, by the way, is the obstruction-of-justice statute, as revised by the Sarbanes-Oxley law, passed by Congress in 2002 while Mrs. Clinton served as a senator, and for which she voted.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

.....and the hypocrisy! 

Mrs. Clinton herself, in a now famous email, cautioned State Department employees not to conduct official business on personal email accounts. The current secretary of state, John Kerry, testified that he assumes that his emails have been the object of surveillance by hostile foreign powers. It is inconceivable that the nation’s senior foreign-relations official was unaware of the risk that communications about this country’s relationships with foreign governments would be of particular interest to those governments, and to others.

It is no answer to say, as Mrs. Clinton did at one time, that emails were not marked classified when sent or received. Of course they were not; there is no little creature sitting on the shoulders of public officials classifying words as they are uttered and sent. But the laws are concerned with the sensitivity of information, not the sensitivity of the markings on whatever may contain the information.

LeninTime
LeninTime

My response to a political system that gives me a choice between a Hillary Clinton and a Donald Trump, or a Ted Cruz, or a Scott Walker, or a Marco Rubio is somewhere between a shrug of contempt and a middle finger. 

But then maybe I'm just made of different stuff than the average Bookman blog regular.

breckenridge
breckenridge

@LeninTime 

So........... you're going to support Jeb Bush?


You know, that communism thing didn't work out so well in Russia and the eastern bloc countries. Far too much corruption.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@breckenridge 

So........... you're going to support Jeb Bush? 

**
I think I'd sooner support Charles Manson.

Doggone_GA
Doggone_GA

@LeninTime  You aren't limited to those choices.  There's always the write-in vote

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@LeninTime But then maybe I'm just made of different stuff than the average Bookman blog regular


You can say that again. Makes one wonder how with your dizzying intellect you spend so much time here everyday.


Surely there are many who would love to hear you speak on political science or any number of topics.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@barkingfrog @Hedley_Lammar @LeninTime 

I'm surprised the Greek Prime Minister has not summoned him to 

**
I wouldn't tell him anything that he hasn't been told a thousand times. And he would ignore it.

It's because it's not an intellectual problem. It's a class problem.

td1234
td1234

@LeninTime Just do not vote. It is probably what you do most of the time anyway since you have no one to support. It is not like your vote is going to count in a Presidential race anyway. 

GaBlue
GaBlue

Still no SHEETZ?  Boy, y'all have really done it now.

barkingfrog
barkingfrog

Janet Reno removed Elian Gonzales from the USA under her complete and

total authority over aliens in the USA as the US Attorney General. Any

complaints about aliens in the USA should be directed to the US Attorney

General.

Numbers_R_Us
Numbers_R_Us

What!  That aborted fetus that Carson used in his research had a beating heart!  Wow!

Kamchak
Kamchak

VETERANS OF CONFEDERATED SONS !

straker
straker

Yes Jesus - "her crime"


Did the FBI charge her with a crime?


If so, I must have missed it.

honested
honested

@Yes_Jesus_Can @straker 

And when they find there was no crime, they will apologize and move on.....

But what will the 'House Permanent Committee on Clinton Persecution' do?

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

Hillary's email server was run by a mom and pop Colorado operation who have servers in a bathroom closet.

This has unleashed a whole load of jokes with the bathroom takeoff.

This ladies and gentlemen from the Dems best candidate for the White House.

Not even a lemonade stand.

fedup52
fedup52


@JohnnyReb You never considered voting for her anyhooo.  So quit belly aching.

Doggone_GA
Doggone_GA

@JohnnyReb  There's something wrong with Mom and Pop businesses?  And here I thought they were the mainstay of our economy

breckenridge
breckenridge

Eric Rudolph was most infamous for the Olympic Park bombing.  But he also bombed a clinic that provided abortions, it was on Roswell Road right at I-285.


Rudolph is pretty typical of the radical activist anti-choice vermin that have infested the republican party. And they need to be kicked to the curb.

l*bh*t*r1
l*bh*t*r1

@breckenridge  and migrated to the party of the intellectual few and mooching class?  Religious goes both right and left, the right doesn't have a lock on ffilth 

breckenridge
breckenridge

@l*bh*t*r1 @breckenridge 


No, you have me confused with somebody else.  I am a very bitter former republican who quit the party in disgust because it was destroyed by the religious right filth.

 

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@breckenridge 

Good luck with that, breck.  The problem is that YOU are the party of overstatement and mendacity. 

Per your bestest "leaders" the public knows you are incapable of telling the truth, much less making an appropriate metaphor.  Hitler is passe now, so you go for Rudolph. 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

(Don't think anyone else linked to this) 

Since some insist on taking the Trumperific Superduper Fence-off-the-Browns plan with any degree of seriousness...


http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/everything-donald-trumps-immigration-plan-gets-wrong/


FiveThirtyEight’s political gurus don’t give Trump much chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination. But his rhetoric on immigration has helped catapult him to the top of most early GOP polls, and many of his positions aren’t far out of step with more mainstream Republican candidates. So it’s worth highlighting some of what his plan gets wrong.

Underlying Trump’s entire immigration policy is the image of thousands of people illegally streaming across the southern border. There are two big problems with this: There are far fewer unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. today than in past years, and many of them aren’t coming across the Mexican border.

According to the latest estimates from the Pew Research Center, there were about 11.2 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. in 2012. That’s down from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007, and basically unchanged since 2009. In other words, there has been essentially no net illegal immigration in recent years — the number of people entering the country illegally has been offset by those leaving, voluntarily or otherwise. (For more on how Pew calculates these numbers, see my explanation from last year.)

Moreover, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico has been steadily declining since 2007, while a rising share are coming from Central America and Asia. According to theCongressional Budget Office, nearly half of undocumented immigrants initially entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas. The number of people taken into custody at the borderhas decreased since 2012, according to the Department of Homeland Security, despite an improving economy that makes the U.S. a more attractive destination for workers from Mexico and Central America.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

Oh, and since SanctuaryCityGHAZI was a thing a few weeks ago:


Trump has seized on the horrific rape and killing of a California woman, among other recent crimes, as evidence that undocumented immigrants are especially dangerous. But asPolitiFact and others have concluded, there’s little evidence to back up that claim. A recent report from the Immigration Policy Center found that immigrants as a whole have lower crime rates than the native-born population, while an earlier report from the same group found that Mexican and Central American immigrants — who make up the majority of undocumented residents — are also less likely than native citizens to be incarcerated for crimes. (Separate researchhas found that immigrants’ lower incarceration rates are not due to their being deported rather than imprisoned domestically.)

Other researchers have raised questions about the Immigration Policy Center’s conclusions, pointing to potential irregularities in census and other data sources. But researchers generally agree that there is little evidence that immigrants, documented or undocumented, commit crimes at a higher rate than the native-born.