Sanders and Trump Seem to be Ahead by a hair but ISIS Could Undo Both
Some might ask why Trump? (getting undone now)Trump has no particulars on how to address the ISIS problem. For voters that don’t know a single thing about ISIS and their strength you could fool them by saying you are going to “kick their asses” like trump has said. Reality tells most people you need to have a strategy. ISIS not being a nation like Iran which you can attack in a cohesive manner. As a matter of fact you can’t even say you are going to kick any nation butt’s with a lot of manpower. We saw it even in nations we attacked after the Spanish-American war. We could not beat Korea, Vietnam which were and are third world nations and even on WW2 we know how many men we lost and years it took to beat Japan (The Americans were the only strong power fighting Japan since Japan attacked the US and everyone else was busy with Germany) and only then we had to use the Atomic bomb.
Coming back to Trump, eventually he is going to have to set a coarse on how to deal with foreign policy which he knows nothing about.
On the Number one on Iowa is a Senator who is vastly disliked by his peers and people that get close to him. He also has not set fourth a comprehensive plan dealing with foreign problems. The politician down the line is Rubio. A Senator not known for his smart remarks or position on foreign policy but he is likable particularly with women. I am not sure that the GOP women would be looking at his hands when he shows on a map what he plans to do with ISIS. It will be foolish this early to make predictions, particularly when there is a lot of money waiting on the side lines, like the Bushes and others which could kinked the plans of the current running group. This is a strange season for the GOP in which they have a bunch of very unlikeable candidates, nationally that is. I don’t see a North Eastern rich dude with no manners and no political knowledge winning many primaries by literally cursing out the opposition. Changes will happen as we go into the regular primary season.
Adamfoxie*
In the last Democratic debate before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton went on the attack against Bernie Sanders. The former secretary of state did so by focusing on the Vermont senator’s perceived weak spot: foreign policy.
Given that many voters seem to care a great deal about America’s role in the world, that could yet prove a fatal vulnerability.
Sanders, who polls predict will win easily in New Hampshire on Tuesday, appeared to be out of his depth when pressed about how his administration would handle foreign policy issues.
Two particular stumbles stood out. First, when asked about the presence of US ground troops in Afghanistan, Sanders replied: “We can’t continue to do it alone.” America isn’t alone in Afghanistan, where the Nato coalition is still present; Sanders’ answer was far more relevant to US troops in Iraq.
Live Sanders and Trump lead as New Hampshire vote looms – campaign live
Live coverage of another day on the primary election trail after Clinton puts Sanders on the defensive in heated Democrat debate
Second, when asked whether North Korea, Iran or Russia posed the greatest threat to the US, Sanders said Islamic State did. Pressed further, Sanders said North Korea, “because it is such an isolated country run by a handful of dictators, or maybe just one”.
Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war – when she was a senator from New York – could also leave her vulnerable but the former secretary of state was quick to shift the focus back to Sanders’ inexperience, saying: “When New Hampshire voters go on Tuesday to cast your vote, you are voting both for a president and a commander in chief.”
But does foreign policy even matter to those who were watching the debate and making up their minds?
In short, yes. It might even be fair to describe foreign policy as the defining issue of this election, if public polling from Pew Research Center is to be believed.
Threat perception, according to the Pew Research Center. Photograph: Pew Research Center
In December 2011, US adults were asked about the most important issues facing the country on the eve of the 2012 election: 55% mentioned economic concerns and only 6% mentioned foreign affairs.
When Pew offered the same options to respondents in December 2015, only 23% chose economic concerns – and 32% said foreign affairs.
More specifically, terrorism is a growing issue. In December 2014, just 1% of respondents said terrorism was the most important issue facing the country. A year later, that had risen to 18%.
There are, however, clear partisan divides here. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to say that Iran’s nuclear programme, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and China’s power are the top threats to national security. Democrats are almost as likely to consider global climate change a national threat as Isis.
Unless Sanders can build confidence in his ability to handle foreign policy (or convince Democrats that the economic issues which form the centerpiece of his electoral platform are the most pressing facing the country) his efforts to reach the White House may well be in trouble.
With the New Hampshire primary just three days away, a poll from CNN and WMUR published on Monday morning is particularly interesting.
The survey is based on interviews with 837 adults in New Hampshire before the Iowa caucuses and 556 adults after them. Not all the individuals questioned said they planned to vote in either party’s primary, and the margin of error on these numbers is over 5%. In other words, be cautious interpreting these numbers.
The poll suggests Sanders has not been harmed by his very narrow defeat in Iowa. The Senator could win 61% of support in New Hampshire; Clinton is backed by just 30% of possible voters.
Those numbers are largely consistent with the averages Real Clear Politics creates across dozens of polls, which also suggest that Sanders has a 31% lead.
Another poll, from NBC/WSJ/Marist and published on Thursday, tells a slightly different story. The 2,551 adults interviewed 2-3 February gave Sanders a 20% lead on Clinton.
Finally, a survey from the Lowell Center for Public Opinion suggests the race is even tighter, with just 15% between the two Democratic candidates.
Among Republicans, polls published since the Iowa caucus suggest a slight dip in support for Donald Trump, but not enough to make a dent in his considerable lead in the state. An average of all polls currently suggests Trump is 17% ahead of his closest rival in the state, Marco Rubio. The Florida senator overtook Ted Cruz two days ago – a trend that might yet be reversed.
The Guardian
Comments