Christie Endorsement is Small Beans....Right Now

The news outlets went into a frenzy yesterday when Donald Trump secured the endorsement of former rival, presidential candidate, and 'Establishment' governor, Chris Christie. All sorts of articles came forward exclaiming that there are 'cracks in the Establishment', 'GOP finally embracing Trump', and other feel-good or -bad stories, depending on your perspective, but I need to put this out there.

Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump just isn't a big deal.

I have always been curious about Governor Christie's establishment label. It doesn't make sense how a liberal Republican in one of the most liberal states and who acts far outside the mainstream is able to take the label of establishment. Personally, the only true establishment candidates in this race have been Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, maybe Lindsey Graham, and maybe Bobby Jindal. (Which brings me to the side tangent that the 'Establishment' field has never actually been that crowded, but that's a teaser for another article.)

Here are some facts about Chris Christie for your consideration.

1. Governor Christie was ranked as the 23rd most conservative governor our of 31 Republican governors, per the linked Huffington Post blog. That's far below fringe Establishment candidate John Kasich (12th) and former candidate Scott Walker (2nd). Not arguing for or against the merits of his philosophy, but ranking that low amongst Republicans arguably places him outside of the mainstream and thus outside of what is largely considered the Establishment


2. As of November 2015, Chris Christie had the fifth lowest approval rating for any Governor in the U.S. Breaking that down just a bit further, he had the fourth lowest approval rating for a Republican governor. Arguably, even if he was in the GOP mainstream, this is a candidate that is disadvantageous to have in your corner anyway. If their state can't get behind them, how can a nation? Moreover, how does that support bolster another candidate's credentials in any way? Perhaps it could help Trump appear even more counter-establishment than he already does?


3. According to Real Clear Politics national polling, at no point in time has Chris Christie eclipsed 4.8 percent of the support. The only early state he ever reached double digit support in was New Hampshire, and since that race is over there is no true impact that his presence or support would have within another state. This has about as much impact as Rick Santorum endorsing Marco Rubio.


4. This is going to sound a little bit personal, but hear it out. Apologies to APN's New Jersey readers, but a YouGov poll in 2015 ranked New Jersey as the most disliked state in the entire country. Moreover....New Jersey was the ONLY disliked state out of 50. How does that apply here? In nearly every case, consciously or subconsciously, we will associate our feelings about a state with a candidate. The more credibility a state has, the more credibility the candidate has. I think a lot of us would find that we're placing more credence towards arguments and stances from a GOP candidate from Texas vice a GOP candidate from Idaho (sorry, Idaho). It just happens that way.

So, what is the liklihood that an unpopular presidential candidate, with one of the lowest approval ratings, from the only disliked state in the Union, and is rated outside of the mainstream will have any sort of tangible impact on Trump's momentum or ratings going forward? This endorsement only matters to three people/entities right now: Chris Christie, Donald Trump, and the media.

The media has fueled the impact of the endorsement, in what must be a slow news cycle, and given it more attention that what it actually deserves. This just is not as important as it would be made out to be.

I think that if you want to get to the ground truth of this, Chris Christie is still fighting for second place. After Christie won re-election in New Jersey in 2013, he ostensibly began his campaign for President. To have that all never really get off the ground, even after three years, is a hard pill to swallow. So, he hasn't given up on the prize yet. Granted, that prize may come in the form of Air Force 2.

Donald Trump was recently quoted as saying that he would look to a political insider to be his running mate. Take that into consideration with the 'long phone call' that Trump said on Morning Joe after the NH Primary, he had with Christie that night. Of course, one cannot forget that the two are very familiar with each other, given all of the real estate and business deals that Trump has in New Jersey. That then leads us to the endorsement.

Christie never had a shot at the presidency in 2016 (maybe in 2012), but maybe again in 2024 if he can land on the ticket as the running mate to Trump. Christie could very well be playing the long game here, and that, to me, is the much larger story in play here. With his term ending soon and no other political prospects on the table, Christie may have made the biggest play yet. Of course, that pure endorsement is not truly all that helpful to Donald Trump for the abundance of reasons listed above, but the play for Christie is an interesting one to watch.

Cruz Off Into the Sunset?

The day before the GOP's Nevada Caucus, we have a brand new race (sort of). Of course, Donald Trump is sitting well-positioned to be the party's eventual nominee, and Marco Rubio is rapidly gaining momentum and endorsements to be the top challenger to Trump. That being said, where does that leave Ted Cruz? John Kasich is virtually a non-factor, outside of Michigan and Ohio, and Ben Carson does not even exist in this conversation. Does the TrustTED candidate live in the middle-ground no-man's land? Though the poll numbers have yet to catch up, Cruz is slowly slipping down the ladder and does not have much hope for climbing back up.

Let's peel both sides of this apart a little bit.

Addressing the negative of this argument, Cruz has already won a state, sits in second in the delegate race, and stands to win perhaps dozens more delegates in Texas. He has a substantial funding apparatus between cash-in-hand by the campaign and by Super PACs like 'Keep the Promise'. He's running second in total votes for thus far and even beat out Donald Trump in a national poll in mid-February (run by NBC/Wall St. Journal). This all reads like the making of a top contender for the GOP nomination. On paper, this isn't far from the truth. The Cruz campaign has accomplished some very significant things on paper.

But does this really feel like Ted Cruz is in power here? Arguably, not so much these days.

Cruz has slipped from fighting Trump for first to fighting Rubio for second, with Rubio on the quick ascent up the GOP food chain. Cruz only stands to win one more state in his broader pursuit to the nomination, has shown no signs of growth in his standing, continues to create enemies within the GOP, and has the lowest favorability ratings of the remaining top-tier GOP candidates.

Long story, short, Cruz is running out of capital and may have peaked in Iowa.

Cruz has had been embroiled in what seems to be scandal after scandal, whether it be the 'Voter Violation' notices, Carson campaign suspension rumors, or misleading videos about Marco Rubio. He has been at the center of one of the dirtier primary campaigns run in years, and that's turned so many moderate and independent voters off to him. That is the exact base that Cruz is going to have to appeal to in a general election, and is potentially the most untouchable base for him.

Going forward, as we saw in South Carolina, Cruz has capped in support and is blocked from
avenues to pull in support from other candidates' base. However, both Trump and Rubio have the capability to pull support from Cruz, whether it be the Tea Party base or Evangelicals. So, as Trump maintains his current levels and Rubio continues his 'Marcomentum', we come full-circle to Cruz's sustainability.

If Cruz continues to stay in the race, he will likely find himself running third in the delegate count behind Trump and Rubio by the end of March. This is certainly an unenviable position to find himself in after starting the race off with so much promise. So, to what end does Cruz even staying in the race serve at this point? Of the three top-tier candidates, he is the only one that lacks a meaningful path to the nomination.

Therein lies the rub.

Could the best thing for the GOP be for Cruz to suspend his campaign prior to Super Tuesday? This makes the race a true two-man race and could finally propel a candidate like Rubio over the top against Trump as the anti-Trump alternative. The Rubio camp needs to take a hard look at what it might take to lure Cruz out of the race. Obviously a long shot of epic proportions, but the GOP is otherwise stuck in a rut for the remainder of the primary season.

This rut leads to one of two conclusions: Trump winning the necessary amount of delegates or pushing the race into a brokered convention that best serves Marco Rubio. Regardless of the scenario, Ted Cruz isn't in it, and there is nothing he can do to change that fate at this point.

Of course, Cruz and his supporters value their role as the insurgency against the GOP establishment, and there is no certainty that a good portion of his supporters would even go to an establishment candidate. This then begs the bigger question. While Cruz's camp is hard-pressed to find a victorious scenario, who does his persistent presence in the primary truly benefit?

I believe there is great uncertainty in the fallout of a Cruz suspension, but both the Trump and Rubio campaigns ought to be thinking very hard about courting Ted Cruz, his potential endorsement, and his supporters.

As the dominoes continue to fall, the single greatest wildcard left in the race may actually be Ted Cruz's endurance for the remainder of the primary season. This viewpoint may be well unpopular at the moment, but the long-view shows no good prospects for Ted Cruz, and he simply is not in control of his own destiny.

A Super Election Day Revolt

As messy as things are for the Republican field in the primary election, the Democrats are possibly facing General Election day woes in November. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are getting an enormous amount and support from the different corners of the party. I'm not yet comfortable saying that this is an unprecedented amount of enthusiasm (because 2008 was at a fever pitch), but the level of emotion right now is certainly epic.

With the enthusiasm of high emotion comes the decision-making of high emotion, and this emotion that the Democrats have channeled is poised to backfire in November.

As has recently been making the political headlines, Bernie Sanders and supporters are pushing back hard against the current system that pits Clinton far ahead of him in the all-important delegate count for the party's nomination. Of course, it would make sense that with Sanders' narrowest of losses in Iowa and dominance in New Hampshire, that he should be enjoying a comfortable lead going into a South Carolina that he will likely lose by 15+ points. But there's a catch: superdelegates. The superdelegate deficit for Sanders truly has an insurmountable appearance to it.

These superdelegates are essentially un-pledged delegates that are free to support any candidate of their choosing regardless of the outcome of their state's primary. They are most commonly in this role based on status (even former status) as an elected party official or leader, though there are still un-pledged delegates that have not held office and were selected by state party officials.

Here's the situation, before a single Nevada vote is cast and with a surge of momentum propelling Sanders forward he is still behind Clinton by 350 delegates, the great abundance of which are pledged superdelegates. Not to mention, before another single vote is cast, The Hill reports that Clinton has already secured the support of half of the superdelegates in Nevada and South Carolina, furthering her lead before the democratic process can occur.

No doubt an awesome weapon for Clinton to have in her back-pocket as the head-to-head polls show a slimming national lead and significant public backing escalating for Sanders in other earlier primary states. As this race intensifies, this voting block could be the extra power that the Clinton campaign needs to secure the nomination. Of course, superdelegates are not pledged until the nomination, but the unofficially declared support from these individuals is the current political reality.

Herein lies the problem. Let's go back to what I said earlier on here, this is a time of high emotion within the Democratic electorate. Bernie Sanders has built a mega-stable of support among the voters that feel out of touch with the system and those that see a government and 'ruling class' that has abandoned them.

Sanders has built an entire campaign on promising to make things fair again for those that the system is unfair to.

So, what does it mean when (per the last national poll) 42% of the Democratic voters feel that their efforts have been marginalized by an Establishment and its rules that void out their votes and opinions? What would be the expected reaction of a large base of people that so whole-heartedly buy into a message from a politician, in a time when politicians are outcasts, a politician that people finally feels care about them?

I submit to you that the reaction would be a very emotional one and would come in two forms in November.

First, the Sanders supporters could very possibly just decide to vote with their feet as a protest against the entire political machine. Historically, this is one of the most symbolic forms of election day protest and could be the refuge of millions of disenfranchised Democrats. Sanders says it himself. When voter turnout is high and people are energized, Democrats win elections. When the people are demoralized and they do not turn out, Republicans typically win. Now, I can't necessarily speak to how true or not that statement is, but perception is reality. The perceptions then among a demoralized base for Sanders could then very possibly be not to show up in November.

An alternative, albeit exponentially less likely, is that the Sanders supporters opt to take the fight to Clinton and the Democratic Establishment in November and vote for the opposition as a sign of protest. Is this possible, sure. However, I still believe that the party would find a way to unify before this happens, but for an emotional base, this would also be an emotional reaction.

All of this to say, that if you are sitting in a leadership role in the DNC and across State parties, it might be time to consider how superdelegates come into play this early in the process. Sanders supporters are already on fire about how this is perceived to be used against them. Easing this now as a point of tension will likely pay dividends at the ballot box in November. With head to head election polls showing razor thin leads, depending on the match-up, a candidate can't afford to be at a loss for votes that they ought to be able to rely on. If the GOP field gets synchronized against the Democrats, November could prove to be a dark time for the Democrats as the people engage in an Election Day Revolt.

We Still Have Jobs To Do

The sudden passing of the long-serving, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia brings a brand new dynamic to current primary election politics, as well as national-level politics. At the risk of being dubbed Captain Obvious, the balance of both the White House and Supreme Court look to shift in the coming months, as the 'political balance' of the Supreme Court now sits at 4-4.

Going back to 1990, each President has successfully nominated two Justices to the Supreme Court and have largely kept the 5-4 partisan spread to one party or the other during that time. The Court had been in a 5-4 conservative lean, but the death of Justice Scalia means that the sitting Democratic President could effectively re-balance the Court. This typically would not cause such a stir as it is now, if it weren't for a very partisan, GOP-led Congress that has already stated firm opposition to approving any of President Obama's nominations.

The political charge doesn't ease in an election year either.

All over the campaign trail in South Carolina, GOP candidates are speaking out against the President nominating anyone to the Court due to 'precedent' of Presidents not doing so in the final year of their term. The is, of course, the appointment of Justice Kennedy in 1988 (Reagan's final year in Office), but there was also a political reality at that point in time. There was hardly any thought given to the fact that the GOP would lose the White House, and that proved to be true when George H.W. Bush destroyed Michael Dukakis in the general election in '88.

Fast forward to current time, and it is abundantly easy to see that the argument being made is certainly a political argument and does not touch on true legal precedent or any precedent of another kind. This is going to be a close and contested election, but the Republicans appear to be certain of a victory if they are insisting on pushing the nomination of a justice for another year.

As an independent observer, this seems entirely irresponsible that there is insistence that the President and Senate doesn't even attempt to go through the motions to replace Justice Scalia. But isn't this just more of the same?

As a country, we have grown weary of the partisan politics that both sides of the aisle are equally responsible for. This is another chapter in the long saga of the continual let-down that the two sides will not simply come together and have some sort of civil discourse to find a way forward. Surely there is a federal judge or legal scholar somewhere that both sides can, at least, halfway agree upon? Well, maybe not.

Per Oliver Knox, Yahoo News Chief Political Correspondent,

Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

There are a few names on there that would meet with very aggressive disagreement from the Republicans. You know what, though? That's fine. I would much prefer that our government does its job, the job we elected them to do, than to roadblock each other from even trying.

Ultimately, they all still have jobs to do. If they don't yield results, that's another thing to deal with, but that is so much better than never trying at all for the people that they work for. But what if this process causes some true negotiation? What if the most unthinkable, inconceivable thing happens in this entire process? What if the two parties work together???

I digress though. There are potentially many more opportunities for the President and Senate to work together in the coming term(s) with the possibility of the next President nominating up to three new Justices (one previously nominated by Reagan and two by Clinton). But, we will get to that when those situations arise in a couple years.

The current situation still remains unresolved, but to President Obama's credit, he plans on going through the motions to uphold what the Constitution outlines as his responsibility in a situation such as this. Though these motions may not be truly in good faith, the fact remains that these elected officials still have jobs to do, and we implore them to try to do them. It's a sad state of affairs that these kind of pleading even needs to take place, but this is the current reality.

My final thought is that the remainder of this Presidential term and a key focus of the next President must not be solely on issues that the core of their party holds dear, but to keep the common interest in mind and prioritize institutional and cultural healing. Otherwise, we will continue to find ourselves in a ceaseless, vicious cycle.

The Counter-Insurgency That Never Was

If it is not abundantly obvious by now, the GOP Establishment is in a world of hurt. We're talking about sprained ACLs in both knees kind of hurt. This could be special kind of hurt. The Establishment is currently at the end of a lifeline with the rope about to be cut as the candidacies of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz surging through the Republican base. 

In short, the RNC has failed its party, and Reince Priebus' lack of leadership keeps the scatter-shot GOP field in a continued state of mayhem. The Establishment candidates have shown no sustained signs of life or true, long-term viability through two primary nights, and they are receiving no support or guidance from the national party. This is, of course, based on the key assumption here that what's good for the Establishment is good for the RNC and vice-versa.

Though we have to ask some key questions. Will an anger-based anti-establishment sentiment be the new normal for the GOP? Is the 'mainstream platform' of the party finally found itself completely out of touch with its base? Is there an ability for the national party to adapt? Is there a will to adapt? 

The Republican insurgency averages about 51% of the national vote with the now remaining four candidates (to include three Establishment candidates) fighting and clawing for some standing. To be fair, anything is still very possible and no single candidate has a true stranglehold on the path to the nomination. Yet, to quote Bane in the Dark Knight Rises, do you feel like you're in control? The mainstream of the party clearly isn't. Traditional things like money and television ad campaigns just aren't amounting to what they used to.

Looking back through the numbers (source: NPR), how frightened must the Establishment be? Traditional campaigning is not working, at least not in Iowa or New Hampshire. Just pointing toward New Hampshire, the four establishment candidates combined for 45% of the vote with total advertising running them an aggregate $2,606 per vote. In contrast, Trump and Cruz combined for 47% of the vote while spending an aggregate $42 per vote. 

Yes, you read that correctly. 

I would love to debate the merits of what that all means, but will possibly leave that to a future post. Right now, I want to focus on the state of the GOP establishment and exactly how much worse it stands to get.

The last week of the Christie campaign and the post-New Hampshire primary exit of the New Jersey governor shook the foundation of this race. Chris Christie arguably has had and may have the most significant impact on the GOP for the entire election cycle. We were very well aware of the Marcomentum that was taking place after the Iowa Caucus; however, a stumble and stall of the Rubio campaign, caused by an assailing Christie at the last GOP debate, changed the questions we asked about the primary. We went from asking if the Establishment can possibly go into cruise control with a surging candidate to wondering if they even have a horse they can back.

Chris Christie, in what has been described as a political murder-suicide, assassinated the Rubio campaign and sent the Establishment cause into a free fall. Christie incorrectly calculated that assailing the rising Rubio would stifle the Senator's progress all while having the impact of setting himself apart from the rest of the Establishment. Instead, he reaped none of the benefits and tossed a softball into the wheelhouse of the GOP insurgency, who knocked it out of the park.

Instead of the Establishment finally having someone to rally around and begin to consolidate support for a long-term campaign, they have a mosh pit filled flailing candidates. To make matters even worse for the Establishment, on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe', Mr. Trump informed Scarborough that Christie called him on Tuesday night and the two of them had a long talk. The broad speculation is that Christie is trying to position himself in the Veep-stakes on the Republican ticket. The governor continues to try to make calculating moves but any potential backing of Mr. Trump will continue to bury the Establishment. That will be a real intriguing story-line to watch play out.

Governor Jeb Bush's camp has made indications of going 'scorched-Earth' on Rubio and Kasich to try and push the other two Establishment candidates out of the race. After observing how that entirely did not work for the Christie campaign, how does this seem like a good idea? If anything, Bush needs to focus on what had been working for Rubio and worked for Kasich in New Hampshire: a positive message. I would submit to you that inner-Establishment desecration will certainly push the insurgency over the top. So why not just try what has worked? If Bush drops out, he hasn't caused any irreparable damage to his Establishment colleagues and the negative campaigning and 'dirty' tactics can be left to Trump and Cruz. That is how you truly set yourself apart in this race. That's what at least shown some signs of working so far. Oh, but there is that wild card still in play, and he goes by W. I suspect he might be making an appearance on the trail sooner than later.

Governor Kasich is unfortunately a one-state wonder. Kasich hit his peak in New Hampshire and was a really nice story on Tuesday night. The shame here is that Kasich is just so darn likeable. He really is. The problem is that he is running a general election campaign during primary season. His more moderate stances on many core GOP issues are simply out of touch with the rest of the party nationally. That will become painfully obvious as the GOP marches through a series of southern primary elections. I suspect he will drop out shortly after the Michigan primary, which is the next one he stands to do somewhat decently on.

Regardless of how you shape this issue, even now, the question is not if but when the GOP Establishment will coalesce around Marco Rubio. He still is showing well nationally and in a variety of other primary state polls. He has time, though not so much, to turn this around. He can finish third and maybe even second in South Carolina, which will get him back on the right track. But he has to perform and his ability to rebound is up in the air and has yet to be truly tested. Signs are showing that he will aim to get back onto a positive message going into South Carolina. It doesn't hurt that he has the endorsement of Senator Tim Scott who is trying to make the case for Rubio to the South Carolina electorate.

Ultimately, the RNC does not yet have faith in the general election viability of the three remaining Establishment candidates. Their inability to manage this race before it really got started put the GOP and perhaps the balance of the country on a very tenuous track. Better management of the field and an understanding of the dynamics within the GOP base and broader electorate could mean a very different story for all candidates still involved. However, the longer the GOP powers that be stall and the more that they want to appease the insurgency, the bleaker that the chances for this counter-insurgency becomes.

The mainstream and RNC is failing half of its electorate right now. The Party's cold relationship with Trump and Cruz is pretty well known by now, and they're still without a true alternative that can take back the GOP's course. 

If the national party is actually interested in stopping Trump or Cruz (and this is a very legitimate 'if'), time is slipping for creating a strong counter-insurgency. As it stands going into South Carolina, this is still the counter-insurgency that never was.

The Swamp Got Murkier?

The New Hampshire Primary does not have a precision-riddled history. In fact, the New Hampshire results consistently do very little for predicting the ultimate winner of the two parties' nominations. Though the 'First in the Nation' primary has a bet of a better track record than the Iowa Caucus, this just isn't the pressure gauge to make any sort of long-term judgement by.

If you look at each party's primary dating back to 1980 (excluding unopposed runs), the Granite State primary has only had a 9/14 accuracy, that's a 64% accuracy rate. Arguably though, since 2000, the New Hampshire primary has been much more accurate than since 1980, but all trends rely on history and many, many data points. That being said, I'm not putting much stock into what the primaries tonight mean for either party.

So, you ask, what do the primaries do? What's the point then?

Politically speaking, there are significant primary and secondary order effects, potentially much more so for the GOP than the Democratic field. With regard to Republicans, there are two factors that come into play when the results are finalized: momentum and the culling of the herd. Momentum was all of the post-Iowa talk. We heard about the bull market on Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and the bear market on Donald Trump and the three establishment candidates.

Obviously, this market trends in all directions at all times as we saw with Marco Rubio's stifled #Marcomentum post-Saturday's debate and John Kasich's seemingly steady climb toward the top of the second tier when he was never awarded a single delegate in Iowa. As we scream (or crawl) closer to the respective conventions, the next wave of momentum for the insurgents and the establishment will be key for anyone's long term viability.

On that matter of long-term viability, the New Hampshire primary also has the historical effect of culling the herd....historically. 2016 may very well be an exception with all 11 candidates that entered tonight (yes, even Gilmore) on the road to South Carolina. That aside, textbooks tell us that the field ought to be whittled down by a candidate or two, which means that you have brand new, undeclared voters that are just looking for a new home. This type of open capital puts candidates into a free-for-all to vie for the affections of these newly available supporters. Depending on who drops out (Fiorina? Christie? Carson?) that opens up a lot of people that swing the balance of the primary in a major way.

On the Democratic side, there's obviously going to be no culling of any herd. You have two candidates, and you're going to have two candidates until the winning delegates total is reached by one of them. Again, this comes back to the momentum argument. By all accounts (pre-results), Sanders ought to win the primary, but now this is where the expectations game comes into play.

There is a chance that Bernie Sanders blows his shot at the nomination tonight even if he wins. Expectations going back to just last week had the Vermont Senator sitting at a comfortable, victory formation distance. In the last week, polls show that Hillary is closing that gap. Now again, probably not enough to win, but she sets herself up very well going forward if the loss is in the low to mid single digits. She beat expectations and completed an effort to make her the second Clinton 'Comeback Kid'.

On the other hand, New Hampshire feels the Bern, we have a long race ahead of us, America.

There's a good chance that tonight's election does us no favors, but isn't that the fun of watching all of this? Politics itself is not a spectator sport, but being a spectator at this juncture is all the rage to me.

The Hoberman Sphere Cycle

Do you remember that kids toy from years and years ago that was basically this big ball that could be expanded and contracted? Google told me that it was called a Hoberman Sphere. More importantly, why would I even possibly be thinking about a Hoberman Sphere? The truth is that I've been trying to think of the perfect analogy to address what the American electorate is experiencing out of all of the candidates this season thus far (and really many, many seasons before too).

Much like Hillary Clinton, most candidates aim to start out there campaigns by positioning themselves as the moderate option in their party, the most appealing candidate that can be the collective solution to uniting the party and then America. There's a hiccup in that plan though...the rest of the candidates in the field.

My time in the political campaign world taught me something pretty obvious: the most energized people will always come out and vote in the primaries. Almost without fail, the most energized people are the people that occupy the more conservative pole (for Republicans) and more liberal pole (for Democrats) of their party. The people that occupy the poles often espouse very passionate views that are outside the moderate wings of their parties.

We were taught to target the people that were thought to be within that realm. They were targeted for donations, notional support, and even yard signs. Why? They were just the more likely people to agree because it meant that someone on the ballot would be in alignment with them when not really too many other candidates on the ballot had strayed away from the moderate faction of their party.

This means that many moderates in the party were not as routinely sought after, but, then again, the moderates were often very indecisive about their candidate choice and thus non-committal to a campaign because the field would be so crowded with candidates in the middle of the spectrum. So, over time, the moderates get left behind, as other candidates look to capitalize on the same amount of momentum and support that others are having by moving toward the more 'extreme' poles of their party.

Another key reason why there is this move to the poles (and we saw this at the Iowa Caucus and into New Hampshire and other early primaries) is to tap that energy into the poles and translate that into voter turnout. A lapse in voter turnout in a candidate's favor typically spells the end of the campaign and the hopes of that candidate. So, during the primary season, that's why we often see much more extreme rhetoric than what we might be accustomed to seeing when two candidates are squaring off against each other in the general election.

Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the process begins to rollback many of the primary election pledges and stances that propelled a candidate to the front of the pack. Now what happens is the complete inverse (the contraction of the Hoberman Sphere). Party loyalists are invested, so it becomes a war for the independents and moderates of the opposing party. We now start to hear the media coverage of the battle for independents, who now become the key demographic in the general election.

Perhaps I'm being naive or optimistic, but there is a lot of alarm sounding around the country that our politics is more divisive than ever. Arguably, it's still divisive, but the problem might not be as dire as is being portrayed. Much of what we're seeing right now is over-reaction to what is still largely typical for the primary campaign season, albeit very atypical personalities that fuel the overall concern.

Of course, the sphere semi-expands again during the general election, though the tension is not aimed within the party. Candidates go into full-court press to do two things: make greater strides to move their platform to the middle and argue that their opponents is far extreme of the broader American electorate.

So, keep calm for now, readers. We're just along for the ride inside of a continuous, age-old political loop. The only way to exercise some measure of control it is by try and control who sits in the Oval Office.

Let me know what you think! Please comment and/or share!

Not What It Looks Like

The Republicans are often under siege for waging a war against women and are commonly on defense over gender equality. However, on appearances, the party has long been pegged as the party for old white men. In recent years though, the party has been trying to make strides to improve perceptions. Going back the past two election cycles, the GOP has featured candidates such as Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin (as Vice President). This specific cycle is teasing out the potential inclusion of Governor Nikki Haley on the GOP ticket.

That brings us to Carly Fiorina.

Ever since announcing her candidacy, she has endured a roller-coaster ride between the lower and middle tiers of the Republican field, made headline news feuding with Donald Trump, and has generally stood her ground on every matter that has crossed her. Yet, she hasn't been able to catch fire and make a sustained run at a top-tier position.

Now, we have a conundrum. The lower-tier candidates have begun dropping out post-poor performances at the Iowa Caucus, but there are too many candidates for the main stage and not enough for the lower card debate. What this now unfortunately means for Mrs. Fiorina is that she's left without a stage as the candidate currently at the low end of the totem pole.

Everyone involved is acting 100% in accordance with the rules of the debate stage, but one almost needs to pause to ask if this is truly the wisest move for the Republican party. While it's certainly 'not what it looks like', the appearance is that the GOP is kicking the only woman in the race in their party to the curb. Perhaps in other years it might not be such a faux pas, but when the leading candidate in the opposing party is a woman, it certainly hurts any bona fides the party might be trying to establish.

Mrs. Fiorina would make the eighth participant on the debate stage on Saturday night, and the GOP has certainly showcased more candidates than that in previous debates. Of course though, it is more than likely that even a strong performance on the debate stage this weekend would yield negligible positive results for her. That's not the point.

The GOP can't afford any slip-ups that leave voters seeing them as unfair to women, especially as the general election comes up and the Republican ticket is probably pitted against Hillary Clinton. The notable exclusion of Carly Fiorina is truly not so egregious, but it's but another nail in the fence that holds back a broader base of women's support to the GOP.

In an another election that is likely to be so close (based on current head to head polls), any actions to estrange a constituency is simply bad for business for the Republican party.

Ultimately, there is no blow-back on the GOP and it helps mend the current public scourges against the party for excluding the only woman in the race on this side. Putting her back on the stage takes away minimal air time from the more main-stream candidates and alleviates the distraction that could likely be a factor in the social media realm during the debate.

Narrowing it down a little further, this is the morally correct thing to do. For so many candidates, next Tuesday will be the end of the road and everyone deserves the chance to make a very public final pitch. To deny that opportunity is contrary to American democratic principles. The GOP's best move is to reverse course and allow Mrs. Fiorina to participate this weekend. It might be the only play.

Digging the Political Grave

Senator Ted Cruz ran a masterfully tactical campaign in the closing days leading up to the Iowa Caucus. In fact, he ran a great campaign literally hours leading up to the casting of the first votes. An APN tweet from last week noted that Senator Rubio acts like he wants the Presidency the most, but Cruz is truly the one playing the game the best at this point.

Ground game, fundraising machine, and Iowa Caucus momentum aside, Cruz is on a different level than the rest of the candidates right now in the GOP field. Mr. Trump can bring the crowds and Governor Bush can lean on Right to Rise Super PAC, but their failures lie in their reliance on words. Cruz's multidimensional game includes actions that potentially no other candidate is readily conversant in so far.

However, Cruz's recent actions are tactically brilliant yet strategically short-sighted.

Since becoming very competitive with Mr. Trump in the weeks prior to the Iowa Caucus spanning into the hours before the initial voting, Cruz's "leak" about the Carson campaign suspension as well as 'Voter Violation' incident has sprung the campaign into a new light. Many of Cruz's competitors are attacking the campaign for dishonest, and Mr. Trump is going as far as calling for a nullification of the results of the Iowa Caucus and have a re-vote. That being said, the Cruz campaign has not done anything illegal and any movement to alter the results now ought to be out of the question.

Cruz is doing what it takes to win and doing it more than anyone else arguably on either side of the aisle. Even more than that, he knows it. Cruz was quoted by CNN as saying "I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote". The merits of the tactics aside, it is indisputable thus far that they have achieved results. That is the tactically brilliant portion of the argument.

There is an error to these ways though. These tactics largely rely on one thing to absolve the memory of their employment: momentum. In sports, they say that winning cures all ills. Much like in sports, the same applies in the political realm. A candidate can always brush away things he/she did or said when it results in a democratically elected win. At that point, the victories begin to mount and the momentum sweeps prior transgressions under the rug. That's it. That's the nature of this beast, compounded by the nature of a 24-hour news cycle.

But here's the hiccup in the philosophy. Hell hath no fury like a political candidate's supporters scorned. Similar to the hardened supporters of Mr. Trump, Cruz's allegiant supporters will not waiver despite the mounting allegations against the campaign. So, there's always a base for Senator Cruz to rely on. However, as candidates begin dropping out of the race, they remember their wronged candidate. That wronged candidate that was a manifestation of their own hopes and dreams for the country. An attack on their candidate is an inherent attack on them.

So, where do they go? The easy answer is not to Senator Cruz. Realistically, that support gets thrown to whoever is the antithesis to Cruz and who has the ability to defeat him. At this moment, that could very well be Senator Rubio. This is a worst-case scenario for the Cruz's campaign, as the surging Rubio, especially with a possible strong showing in New Hampshire under his belt, beginning to have support coalesce around him from all factions of the Republican party. The establishment is already anti-Cruz, but the supporters of the remaining candidates may also soon have reason to as well.

As the negative attention builds on Cruz's tactics (presuming there is more to follow), generally and newly uncommitted voters weigh two factors heavily as the primary tempo increases: electability and likability. With everything mentioned prior to this statement, the aggregate effect of these tactics, in addition to the media's likely demonization of Cruz will lead voters to feel positively about either that electability or likability, which spells trouble for the currently hot Cruz campaign.

The Iowa hurdle has sense been cleared, and now it's time for the Cruz camp to take a step back and take the long view in order to survive long-term. Relying purely on momentum may not be enough and, even worse, may be naive with just one very close victory in one primary thus far. From the outside looking in, Senator Cruz is in the act of digging a political grave for himself. Everything is still so early and not so far along that the ship cannot be righted, but the true conundrum is the following question. Does an overall strategy shift and denial of the tactics that have gotten him to this point take away from the appeal he has with his base and put a strangle on his ability to operate in the ways he has used to propel him toward the front?

On a Positive Note

Dating back to the Ronald Reagan's first term, the winning candidate has touted the positive messages. Though the campaigns might be run in a negative fashion, the core messages are still ones that are intended to inspire and cause people to believe in their country. Going backwards in time:

• Barack Obama 2012: Forward
• Barack Obama 2008: Change We Can Believe In
• George W. Bush 2004: Yes, America Can
• George W. Bush 2000: Compassionate Conservatism
• Bill Clinton 1996: Building a Bridge to the 21st Century
• Bill Clinton 1992: Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow
• George H.W. Bush 1988: Kinder, Gentler Nation
• Ronald Reagan 1984: It's Morning Again in America

Ronald Reagan's campaign slogan for 1980 stopped the trend, which was 'Are you better off than you
were four years ago?'. The question itself is an inherent attack vice a genuinely positive message, though the tone of the country and the political establishment was much different at that time. Fast forward to today, we're looking at a potentially different tone.

Over the last 32 years, the most positive message has typically won out, even as the nature of campaigns have been drowned in relentless negativity. Even as many campaigns have been run negatively, often through advertising and personal attacks, the candidate that most energetically pushed positive tones came away with the election victory. Former Presidents Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Current President Barack Obama were all noted as not only having significant energy, but they applied it to an overall positive message.

Let's take a look at the current front runners as of the Iowa Caucus polling:

• Bernie Sanders: A Future to Believe In
• Hillary Clinton: Fighting For Us
• Donald Trump: Making America Great Again
• Ted Cruz: Reigniting the Promise of America
• Marco Rubio: A New American Century

While there are certainly other candidates that are promoting a positive tone, these five candidates are arguably the five most energetic candidates pushing this message to the electorate. That means something to many people. With as much disdain as the American people commonly have for the government and for whatever administration is in the Oval Office, a rejuvenating positive message is refreshing for many and provides hope for something new, more, and better going forward.

The nature of campaigns, specifically for some of these candidates, often take a very negative overture. Ultimately, as we know in American society, branding matters. The way these candidates brand themselves as the choice candidate for elevating the American people and moving us forward to a new level is what ultimately resonate. We choose to accept the good that people often times over the bad that they do. As such, we come to accept the people who exclaim their positive overtures.

It really should be no shock that these five candidates are at the top of their party going into the Iowa Caucus and will continue to sit at the top of their party's respective polls throughout most of the rest of the race. When this all raps up in November, I still believe that, regardless of the anomalous season so far, the most positive message and messenger will again prove victorious and will be sworn in one year from now.