I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.2517261.1454419423!%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Farticle_400%2Floser3n-3-web.jpg&f=1

would be nice to have an election thread to look at at work without Buttload, Shit, Fuck or Assholes big and bold at top

someone on my facebook:

"I'm so glad the Iowa Republicans have broken with the establishment to get behind a Princeton man married to a Goldman Sachs executive who both worked for George W. Bush."

tbf Dubya hates him

thread title was just a suggestion from previous thread, I suppose we can delete this and start another one if it's really a problem...?

"I'm so glad the Iowa Republicans have broken with the establishment to get behind a Princeton man married to a Goldman Sachs executive who both worked for George W. Bush."

Okay, that's pretty funny.

tbf Dubya hates him

Everybody does, which is why it's awesome. I can't decide which prospect brings me more hope and joy: the Republican Party having to host a convention that anoints Cruz (whom almost everyone hates), or one that anoints Trump (whom almost no one trusts)? Both offer delicious schadenpossibilities.

I'm not yet seriously thinking about a Rubiocentric nominating convention. I suspect it would be a dull near-repeat of McCain's and Romney's, but with the added fun of the hard right mouth-frothers sitting out because they didn't get what they want (AGAIN).

peace to all but i agree, can we get the thread title into more PG13 territory

how about quoting the donald:

I will keep doing, but not worth it!

ok fine

can some admin delete this thread plz

it feels like a clinton/rubio showdown is most likely, as has been predicted for months, although i wouldn't be shocked to see cruz or trump in there as well. rubio seems most electable against clinton because it would take advantage of the low enthusiasm on the dem side after (if?) bernie gets knocked out. it's easier to rile up the dem voters if the opposition is trump or cruz. but rubio is able to hide his assholeism behind a veneer of innocence and boredom. it's harder to take the kind of guy who handsomely smiles and knows how to speak in complete sentences and do whatever ALEC tells him to do and build him up into the apocalyptic opponent that's necessary to convince the other half of the country to roll out of bed and vote for another clinton

admins can just retitle the thread!

oh, right

well I'm fine with whatever as long as we keep the "The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread" part

Bahaha whoops give me a sec, editing on phone

loool

ffs

Love you jjj

agree w/Karl generally - Sanders is gonna win NH and then flame out on Super Tuesday, on the GOP side it's harder to tell how long things are going to drag on since it seems like absolutely no one is willing to drop out as long as theirs still money rolling in, but agree that from a general election standpoint the conventional wisdom re: the math of a rubio/clinton face-off is probably the most attractive to the GOP.

xxp

It's worth noting that if we're just editing the title, it will still show up as "Fuck All Shit, etc" in our bookmarks.

at least until the cache resets

otoh this title is wonderful and I don't want to lose it

can we rename every thread on ILE to this

Sanders will "flame out" on March 1, huh? it could happen ... but maybe not

Super Tuesday slate:

Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado caucus
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota caucus
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

how many of those can Sanders plausibly 'do well in' besides VT and MA? MN, VA...?

i had to google rubio to remember what he looked like.

http://www.puppetsandprops.com/Images/Eddie2.jpg

maybe CO? lots of college stoner types, but a lot of libertarian streaks in the state.

really wish my state had a serious Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate

how was this thread title not a variation on "i feel like obama does the national debt on purpose"

^

i'm gonna start a new thread since this bookmark has all the potty words in it still

man, rubio is a child. hillary could eat him for breakfast and still have room for brunch.

Sanders will "flame out" on March 1, huh? it could happen ... but maybe not

I know everyone's gotten into the habit of saying this election is not like any other prior primary, but that's really only true on the GOP side. On the Dem side things are adhering to a very familiar pattern that's held true for decades (Obama being the exception, for rather obvious reasons). I don't see anything in Sanders' campaign to suggest his run is structurally different from his predecessors.

xp

I predict Sanders will be competitive in all of those states except mmmmmmaybe Oklahoma; I also predict that the states where he has the best chance for an outright win besides VT and MN are CO and VA. I think, based on the number of establishment Democrats I know in this state as well as the number of people who are dissatisfied with Sanders; proposals not having the level of concrete detail to them they want in order to see if they are feasible, that MA is going to be much more competitive than someone outside of New England would think. It's easy to think of the states up here as being a single entity since most of them are the size of a postage stamp but things that would fly in NH/VT/ME are not necessarily going to play well in MA/CT/RI and vice versa; in MA, Sanders has faced some amount of pushback for being an unrealistic VT hippie who hasn't had to represent an appreciably large number of heterogeneous people throughout his entire campaign.

lmao old lunch xps

I don't think Bern is being nominated either, but NY isn't until April 19, and i don't see him dropping out before then.

https://media.giphy.com/media/AJmXWUFsZgnPW/giphy.gif

well i'll be, good analysis from matt yglesias

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10892724/bernie-sanders-wake-up-call

Democratic leaders aren't as smart as they think

The Clinton campaign's strategy will, of course, be second-guessed as stumbling frontrunners always are. But the larger problem is the way that party as a whole — elected officials, operatives, leaders of allied interest groups, major donors, greybeard elder statespersons, etc. — decided to cajole all viable non-Clinton candidates out of the race. This had the effect of making a Clinton victory much more likely than it would have been in a scenario when she was facing off against Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Deval Patrick. But it also means that the only alternative to Clinton is a candidate the party leaders don't regard as viable.

Trying to coordinate your efforts to prevent something crazy from happening is smart — otherwise you might wind up with Donald Trump. But trying to foreclose any kind of meaningful contact with the voters or debate about party priorities, strategy, and direction was arrogant and based on a level of self-confidence about Democratic leaders' political judgment that does not seem borne out by the evidence. This is a party that has no viable plan for winning the House of Representatives, that's been pushed to a historic low point in terms of state legislative seats, and that somehow lost the governor mansions in New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

It's a party, in other words, that was clearly in need of some dialogue, debate, and contestation over what went wrong and how to fix it. But instead of encouraging such a dialogue, the party tried to cut it off. That leaves them with Sanders's Political Revolution theory. It doesn't seem very plausible to me, but at least it's something.

so gonna happen...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2015/4/clinton.jpg

Iowa poll a year ago

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/694534028775530496

huh, i didn't see that shaun king had endorsed sanders. that seems like it could mean something

ok lol at the thread title. my suggestion was meant in jest ftr.

Super Tuesday is basically intended to arrest any New England liberals getting too far along in the process. so yeah not so surprising that it looks like a rough day for sanders. massachusetts, minnesota, colorado and lol vermont do all seem do-able though not without a fight in most. it's the next couple weeks after that where he could actually soak up some delegates, so long as he still looks like a real, fighting candidate:

MARCH 5 - Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas
MARCH 6 - Maine
MARCH 8 - Mississippi, Michigan
MARCH 15 - Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio

as previously noted, i think the effective tie in iowa helps him more than hurts him in this regard, he just has to be able to shrug off a week or so of bad news. he has the money to keep campaigning, and since his mission is to force his issues into the conversation, he has every incentive to stay in and keep churning up delegates even in states he can't win. even if the national media basically tune him out, each state that he campaigns in extensively (ad buys, public appearances, etc.) is subject to an overton window shift of some kind. people whose first voting experience is voting for the democratic socialist are going to have to see the range of possibilities a little differently.

i know i sound like a broken record on these themes, but i really think this is the more interesting story in this election, since the horse-race stuff (on the dem side) is a foregone conclusion bar the details. may i remind you that a self-proclaimed socialist just tied in a nominating contest in the corn-fed heartland of america! saying "oh yeah sure but iowa is full of white liberals" is leaving out too much detail imho - exactly what does "liberal" mean, what kind of things are on the table... i mean generally "liberal" in america has come to mean a pretty short list of MOR civil-rights positions and not being aligned with the real corporate scumbags, not necessarily "fuck it, let's just go back to taxing the rich to pay for needed services and an expanded welfare state." it could be that some core things are shifting under the radar. i dunno. this isn't really fully formulated, sorry.

("week or so of bad news" referring to super tuesday results, not iowa)

feel like it's important to bear in mind that at some point the math of "[candidate] needs to win x number of delegates in upcoming contests to win the nomination" becomes more and more critical. And once one candidate starts to outpace the others and the likelihood of the remaining candidates racking up the necessary number of delegates in the remaining contests diminishes, things start to look like a foregone conclusion pretty quick.

also lol: http://www.sfgate.com/news/local/politics/article/Loser-com-now-redirects-to-Wikipedia-page-of-6800933.php

another critical factor that hasn't yet gotten the thinkpiece it deserves:

chants of "BER-NIE! BER-NIE! BER-NIE! BER-NIE!" are inherently more exciting and easier to join than "HIL-LA-RY! HIL-LA-RY!" or "CLIN-TON! CLIN-TON!"

xpost Juvenile and yet so beautiful.

who is Shaun King?

Retired surgeon Ben Carson, who was polling strong a few months ago, headed for home to Florida after finishing in fourth place with 9 percent of the vote. In a bizarre message, his campaign said he wasn’t suspending his campaign but just that “Dr. Carson needs to go home and get a fresh set of clothes.”

xp: Civil rights guy who sorta came to prominence in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting.

ok, i read a NYT Mag profile of him about a year ago but forgot his name.

Lindsey Lindskog
‏@lollipopxlindz
Did @HillaryClinton just take notes on everything @BernieSanders has been saying, paraphrase it, and pass it off as her speech? #IowaCaucus

Matt Taibbi
‏@mtaibbi
Yes. It's the politics version of the movie "Species."

Shaun King is an activist loosely affiliated with Black Lives Matters who has started becoming famous for being light-skinned enough that some of his detractors have claimed he's pulling a Rachel Dolezal, raising funds for charities aimed at improving the lives of black people that seem to dissipate after the fundraising effort completes and getting denounced by other Black Lives Matters activists on Twitter.

http://i.imgur.com/e2GdYPW.png

luv 2 gamble

which Democrats?

angry, economically fucked white ones

I agree with dlh that it's going to take more than just sitting back and enjoying the demographic tailwind... more than just figuring people are going to wise up.

That said, it's still kind of LOLWUT that there's a bunch of people out there saying "Stick it to the snobbish Eastern one-percenter elites by voting for the billionaire Manhattanite who went to Wharton!"

the extra dumb ones

that's a lot of hyphenates.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, February 29, 2016 11:50 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

technically i'm still a music critic

new Reagan Democrats xxxxp

I don't think any Democrat is gonna sit back and laugh IN November at the Trump Army, despite what despairing white Sanders supporters say.

lol hey

Is it hyperbole to say that anyone who self-identifies as a Democrat and votes for Trump in the GE should be euthanized? Asking for a friend.

november's prob gonna be fine but there will be lots of months after that

His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNTk1ODI3MTM5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTgzMTY2Mw@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg

"o.nate, you're going to find many things depend upon a certain kind of Democrat."

That said, it's still kind of LOLWUT that there's a bunch of people out there saying "Stick it to the snobbish Eastern one-percenter elites by voting for the billionaire Manhattanite who went to Wharton!"

― carry me a laser down the road that i must travel (Ye Mad Puffin)

ya'll need to get over this already there's a lot more to signifying class in America than where you went to school or how much money you have

I stand with dlh. There is much in Trump's message that is allealing to economically marginalized white democrats, especially compared to Clinton. It's very hard to predict who will come out ahead in that matchup, especially since we haven't seen how Trump is going to change his message in the general election.

dlh makes a lot of solid points.

trump is building a new american right

eh. it looks a lot like the old Reagan right coalition to me, except for the anti-Bush and anti-Iraq part, which seems to me more like a recapture of working class people who were firmly in the Reagan coalition, but who were arrogantly abused by Bush and the neo-cons in Iraq, but also abused by NAFTA and deregulation, which makes them just as rabidly anti-Clinton as anti-Bush.

Trump is (rhetorically) rejecting the oligarchic heart of the Republican party, which makes him wildly popular with the voters who've been shat on by those oligarchs for decades, but if he were in office it is more than likely he'll serve them by throwing them chunks of red-meat populist rhetoric, rather than by dismantling most of the oligarchic privileges that have been implemented since 1981.

Panicking isn't useful and it doesn't look cool, granted, but I am panicking a little bit

white guys with graduate degrees will be ok

My dad being a Trump supporter is the saddest thing (mom thinks he's insane). Idk maybe he thinks Trump can help him repay the 7k he owes me

Still don't want to be in a country that's beholden to whatever voting bloc Trump is half-intentionally forming

xp to kev

This "Is Trump the new right?" is reminiscent of 2008 debates where "is Nixon or Reagan the ideological ancester of the current GOP?" was the quesiton.

Yeah the tea party was scary, but this new thing is weirder and scarier potentially.

eh I don't know. Tea Party folks control my state legislature and lots of others. They've done more horrible shit than use orange rinse in their hair and yell at a Cuban American whelp in Papi's Brooks Brothers suit

The tea party succeeded in pushing Congress to shut down the government over nonsense budget nonsense

Yeah they've had a pernicious effect for sure. It's hard to tell what *this* will wnd up being. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's a major shift in the Republican Party

btw, it worth remembering that Reagan was given a free pass by evangelicals, even though it was transparently obvious that, like Trump, his faith consisted entirely of lip service and his true convictions were wholly secular. Trump needn't fear that many of the Cruz/Carson voters will defect from him in the general.

I have Brooks Brothers glasses. Can I still be a progressive?

i think the tea party has peaked tbh, so much of their anger was so focused on such a non-existent problem and was so obviously formed because Obama won in 2008 (long before he destroyed america with--oh wait) that i think people are generally done with them. trump's success i think is a little bit of that leftover, a little bit of the weak republican field, and a lot of his celebrity power. not 100% worried it's enough to carry him to victory in November, not 100% worried that if he does win it does anything more than potentially be even more destructive for the republican party than a loss, not 100% convinced on either of the previous points though.

Yeah, one of the ironies of 1980 was evangelicals went for a Hollywood actor over a Sunday-school teaching born-again. xxp

The gradual process of a successful Trump campaign has been a horrifying development, but I'm trying to imagine how shocked I'd be if I somehow missed everything between his escalator-ride announcement and his current standing. It was supposed to be a joke. Like if Gary Busey ran or something.

xpost i thought reagan was a superchristian? i remembered reading anecdotes about how how he truly believed armageddon would take place in his lifetime (chilling considering the us/ussr nuclear stuff going on at the time), and then he had this quote in People in 1983:

"Theologians had been studying the ancient prophecies-what would portend the coming of Armageddon?-and have said that never, in the time between the prophecies up until now, has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this.

...I think whichever generation and at whatever time, when the time comes, the generation that is there, I think will have to go on doing what they believe is right."

i dunno, i guess that could just be lip service too, but he seemed to be a believer

yes i think he believed all that but w/out running off to church.

white guys with graduate degrees will be ok

well i don't have a grad degree but i DO have cancer, so eager to see what Trumpcare will look like!

Tea Party has also peaked partly because the label is now perceived, by those the right, to have been coopted by opportunistic rent-seekers.

it's a boy: can we at least say that it's a trifle odd to have someone who travels in a private plane with his name written on the fuselage in 7-foot-high letters presented as a "champion of the downtrodden little guy"?

i think the tea party has peaked tbh, so much of their anger was so focused on such a non-existent problem and was so obviously formed because Obama won in 2008

I don't think the tea party was ever a movement, it was just convenient for the media to frame it like one. there are just a lot of crazy people out there. nothing to peak, they're not going away. this kinda reactionary nationalism started bubbling up thanks to dubya. obama was a catalyst but the america love it or leave it tough guy president stuff started post-9/11.

I don't doubt that Reagan took seriously ancient Biblical prophecies. He and Nancy also famously consulted astrologers. Probably his personal beliefs were a very Hollywood-esque melange of New Age beliefs and idiosyncratic theology.

Reagan was so Christian that he never went to church

The tea party was specifically obsessed with the budget though, I thought, and this idea that people who couldn't pay their mortgages should suffer for it. Seems like a very different message than Trump, although I assume it involves many of the same people

Reagan's religious allegiances showed themselves with the Bob Jones shit and hiring James Watt and the cult of lachrymose masculinity that worked at Pentagon and NSC.

a very Hollywood-esque melange of New Age beliefs and idiosyncratic theology.

yeah this is about right afaict. hardly disingenuous tho.

Tea Partiers were proportionally drawn more from the wealthier end of the GOP, which would be kind of the opposite of Trump's core demographic. xxp

That describes a lot of American Christianity honestly

Xp to dll.

Should probably get zing so this doesn't keep happening

And yeah, you're right o.nate. The original "tea party" was supposed to be a rebellion of bond traders rebelling against Obama's debt relief program lol

it was Bush's debt relief program when it started

this thread is so big it’s crashing my browser, so I took the liberty of starting a new one:

Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

or bank bail outs or whatever

Santelli's rant was about Obama's mortgage relief i thought

I've never heard of him, he was a CNBC anchor?? Wiki says he made some kind of statement on February 19, 2009, and my memory is that Tea Party was in the air well before that

I thought thats where the word "tea party" came from, but i am just going off my memories of reading griftopia in 2011

Taxed Enough Already = T.E.A., plus the dudes already had a boner for the Founding Fathers