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

Apparently the pros think more of the clowncar than you guys do.

When it gets down to just two major party nominees, all the money and all the surrogates are focused on the single point of opposition. It gets tougher. Even a candidate as weak as Rubio would have a ton of throw weight behind him pushing.

xpost the Empire phased that role out years before the destruction of the 2nd Death Star

as Nate Silver has pointed out, don't be so quick to assume Rubio just shat the bathtub. while he was the loser of the debate, these things are often hard to translate into actual results.

that being said, he wasn't in the driver's seat to begin with so while it might not *hurt* him as much as feared, it definitely won't help.

still feel like Trump isn't getting the nom, even if it will require some backdoor convincing of a candidate to withdraw sooner than they want to. but then again, the Repub party just whiffed trying to take out Cruz's kneecaps, so maybe they're just giving up and hoping they can reshape him.

how the fuck is it not a vote for hil piece?

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 8 February 2016 20:33 (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, she doesn't tell us to vote for Hil is a good start, only mentions Bernie a half-dozen times, including pointing out that this isn't about his views or his candidacy as much as it's about the state and history of progressivism v women.

Have to ask, Amateurist - have you read the piece in question here, or are you surfing on vibes?

― Andrew Farrell, Monday, 8 February 2016 21:07 (7 minutes ago) Permalink

It ends with "this is why I'm voting for Hillary," and describes Bernie Sanders as someone who "ran to keep feminists out of office." And she regularly writes pro-Hillary and anti-Bernie pieces.

DJP the continuing power of the Tea Party to affect local elections and cumulatively to affect national politics is proof that Americans can and do get engaged in a sustained way on specific legislative issues if they feel a strong connection to them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_the_Tea_Party_movement

as Nate Silver has pointed out, don't be so quick to assume Rubio just shat the bathtub. while he was the loser of the debate, these things are often hard to translate into actual results.

It's not that he "lost the debate," it's that his extreme vulnerabilities as a candidate became obvious, much like when Rick Perry gave those garbled speeches that helped tank his campaign. Silver is great at certain kinds of analysis but I'd bet he's wrong on this point.

So according to that Politico article, HRC should have hired someone like the guy who helped her lose in 2008.

xpost I get that, but this has also been a campaign where the (perceived) frontrunner has publicly face-planted multiple times without the expected blowback.

this what was a Google Analytics poll had to say halfway through the debate:

https://twitter.com/hunterschwarz/status/696167531711750144

and here's Time magazine's results after it concluded, which actually had Rubio tied with Christie.

(Slate had results more fitting in with the narrative, with Rubio nowhere to be found).

so it's hard to say. remember, this is a party that viewed Biden's dismantling of Ryan to be "bullying behavior".

meanwhile, Trump is the frontrunner in all those polls (admittedly not the most scientific ones), despite having been deemed a 2nd/3rd place finisher by the majority of experts who graded the debates.

who knows. I hope they all die in a tractor pull accident.

oops forgot link:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268556-online-poll-trump-triumphant-in-latest-gop-debate

Have to ask, Amateurist - have you read the piece in question here, or are you surfing on vibes?

i was responding to your comment which referenced the piece but wasn't /about/ it. no, i didn’t read the piece. not sure what "surfing on vibes" means but it sounds dangerous.

Tough But Wrong is my new favorite slogan, thanks Alfred

not sure what "surfing on vibes" means but it sounds dangerous.

Brian Wilson solo album iirc

xpost I get that, but this has also been a campaign where the (perceived) frontrunner has publicly face-planted multiple times without the expected blowback.

True, except what happened with Rubio in his exchange with Christie wasn't a face-plant or gaffe in the conventional sense.

gaffes are "human all too human" moments

The Christie/Rubio exchange was a straight-up Mortal Kombat fatality situation

And then k3vin writes to Οὖτις: "your cali vote didn't matter tho lol, so don't sweat it."

Well so IF the value of Berniemania is that it shows there is non-ignorable voter engagement behind a position (even if it is not a winning position), then All Votes Matter, surely?

just to be clear (because I *hate* how these distinctions are elided) - Nader did not run in a party primary, he ran in the general election. Primary votes matter *to the party*. My general election vote for Nader didn't matter to anyone, because he ran *as a Green*, and he had no hope of winning California's electoral votes.

many many xposts

Democrats don't care about Green voters in a national election, because they aren't Democrats.

xxxxp

iow, trump's face-plants are read as unfettered self-expression

rubio's "face plant" otoh is read as a symptom of inauthenticity, a mind hijacked by the script.

No just wondering - I know it's kind of your thing to say "I don't think anyone from that group could think this" just after someone from that group has explained why they think this, but you might, y'know, if you've got some time to spare..

(I think that was man alive's comment?)

The Christie/Rubio exchange was a straight-up Mortal Kombat fatality situation

― its subtle brume (DJP), Monday, February 8, 2016 4:41 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This. As long as enough people see that clip, I bet Rubio plummets in the polls. Being made to look like you have zero testosterone is still unfortunately very hard for a male candidate to recover from, especially on the GOP side, and that's pretty much what that clip was. I don't even think it matters that much what Christie said, it read as "I'm a man, you're a little boy, go sit down little boy." I don't see how he recovers.

The Christie/Rubio exchange was a straight-up Mortal Kombat fatality situation

― its subtle brume (DJP), Monday, February 8, 2016 4:41 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can Karl Malone get on making a graphic of this

never forget:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ZxJVnM5Gs

he's assembling quite a greatest hits at this point

in other news, the inevitable happens: http://news.yahoo.com/woman-accused-bill-clinton-assault-campaign-against-hillary-113320282.html

Meanwhile Rubio pisses off a gay man:

MANCHESTER, N.H. – A middle-age gay man confronted Senator Marco Rubio here on Monday over his opposition to same-sex marriage, pointedly asking, “Why do you want to put me back in the closet?”

“I don’t,” Mr. Rubio replied. “You can live any way you want.”

The tense exchange inside the Puritan Backroom diner ended with Mr. Rubio walking away and the displeased voter calling him a “typical politician.”

Mr. Rubio, who is seeking to win over conservatives, is seldom asked about gay rights at his campaign stops. But courting voters in a crowded New Hampshire diner on the eve of the primary is an unpredictable business.

The voter, who identified himself as Timothy Kierstead, was seated at a table with his mother and his husband when Mr. Rubio walked up behind him, according to pool reports of the encounter. During a brief conversation, Mr. Kierstead, 50, told Mr. Rubio that he was married but complained that the senator’s position amounted to him declaring that “we don’t matter.”

Mr. Rubio, who was standing with his youngest son, Dominick, 8, by his side, gently disagreed. “No, I just believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

“Well,” replied Mr. Kierstead, “that’s your belief.”

Mr. Rubio continued: “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.”

Mr. Kierstead said the law had already been changed, referring either to a Supreme Court ruling that has legalized same-sex marriage across the country or to state legislation in New Hampshire that did the same.

Mr. Rubio decided to conclude their conversation. “I respect your view,” he said, patting Mr. Kierstead on the shoulder and starting to walk away.

Mr. Kierstead was unsatisfied. “Typical politician,” he said loudly. “Walk away.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/08/gay-voter-to-marco-rubio-why-do-you-want-to-put-me-back-in-the-closet/

Mr. Rubio continued: “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.”

man is this guy stupid

seriously, this is their guy?

i don't think it's any sort of fatality situation, although it may be a babality.

before the debate:

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/mehta-net-favorability-liveblog-0206-full.png

even if he somehow took a big hit from it, he'd still be better off than the establishment crew

guys:

the Puritan Backroom diner

xxxpost normally one would think that was simply a verbal fumble but given the recent debate I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly what he intended to say.

I've known plenty of Puritan backrooms, there's lots of them

Tough But Wrong is my new favorite slogan

I believe Bill Clinton's descrip of this is "Strong and Wrong."

I did read that Rubio had a pancake breakfast that served no pancakes

Is there any good work on the relationship between "favorability" and votes? This also came up when I was discussing Sanders/Clinton, because I'm just guessing there can sometimes be a disconnect if the "favorable" candidate isn't seen as the one that can win the general election. People vote partly to block the other side, not just for who they like best.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the entire point of the judicial branch (specifically the Supreme Court but all of the courts) that they are interpreting whether the laws that the legislature comes up with are actually consistent with the Constitution and that any law drafted that they've decreed is unconstitutional is null and void? Ergo at this point, attempting to roll back the right to marriage is unconstitutional and de facto a non-starter unless you can get a Supreme Court case to reverse precedent?

yes I am taking Rubio more seriously than he needs to be taken but still

xxxpost though that's nowhere near as bad as...

"“It’s a terrible situation,” Rubio replied. “I mean, a crisis pregnancy, especially as a result of something as horrifying as that, I’m not telling you it’s easy. I’m not here saying it’s an easy choice. It’s a horrifying thing that you’ve just described.”

“I get it,” he added. “I really do. And that’s why this issue is so difficult. But I believe a human being, an unborn child has a right to live, irrespective of the circumstances of which they were conceived. And I know that the majority of Americans don’t agree with me on that.”

Rubio's answer is nonsensical. The legislature *did* change the law, and the Supreme Court essentially upheld it. So shut up Marco.

xp

Actually the NH legislature changed the law irrespective of the Supreme Court, whose decision didn't have any impact on states that had already legalized gay marriage.

But I believe a human being, an unborn child has a right to live, irrespective of the circumstances of which they were conceived.

Again, this man's grammar is a wonder

Sort of a technicality, but SCOTUS didn't really "uphold" pro-gay-marriage laws, since there was nothing stopping states from passing those laws.

Right one happened then the other, is what I was getting at. Both the legislature *and* the Supreme Court have validated that guy's marriage.

xp

guys I don't even think Rubio knows a Supreme Court exists.

guys i am a little late to this but i just saw the debate introduction

whooooooooooooooo-eeeee

is it just me or did trump think that maybe carson was onto something, was somehow upstaging all the other candidates by standing in the hallway, so trump was like dammit nobody upstages the donald, NOBODY

i'm sorry i just, i know i'm like DAYS late with this reax, but i just, i don't know how anybody can talk about anything else, it is the greatest debate moment i can ever remember

it is def up there

it was one of the top moments of all time

big bang
et tu, brute
the walk-on debacle

i like how pretty much nobody emerged with any integrity whatsoever except maybe kasich by omission - the other nominees just smirking and walking past, even the moderator coming off like a little shitstain, justifying himself, not thanking whoever it was that reminded him to introduce kasich, pleading that, what, the room was "loud" or something

it was like, here you go, America, these are your tribunes. do you like what you see in the mirror? how did we get here??

That train wreck was caused by two things:

1) The debate moderators completely stepped on applause in their haste to introduce candidates, causing the candidates to not hear their names when they were announced.
2) The candidates didn't trust that the stage manager knew what he was doing and wouldn't walk out when he told them to.

My ultimate takeaway was "always listen to the stage manager" and the hubris involved in not doing so caused Carson, Trump, Kasich AND the moderators to look like jackasses.

Also, Kasich WAS introduced; it was in the middle of a bunch of screaming and barely audible on the TV feed, but he was introduced.

it was a moment straight out of duck soup except that none of the actors were in on the joke

Is there any good work on the relationship between "favorability" and votes? This also came up when I was discussing Sanders/Clinton, because I'm just guessing there can sometimes be a disconnect if the "favorable" candidate isn't seen as the one that can win the general election. People vote partly to block the other side, not just for who they like best.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, February 8, 2016 4:58 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hate to keep citing the same person rather than a variety of views, in this case it's because this is all I've found so far with googling...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/do-romneys-favorability-ratings-matter/

conclusion is that late-stage favorability issues are far better predictors than early-stage, but that it's hard to determine causality vs correlation, about what I expected.

I think the knock with Trump is that he is perceived as someone disliked by the party and may cause defection during the 2016 election. However I'm nervous about that speculation because it's one thing to talk that way about a heavily disliked candidate during a primary, another when a candidate you dislike is going against "that socialist" Sanders or "the corrupt Hillary" and wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who claim they'll vote against GOP if he runs turns out to be lower.

still, think he'd be embarrassed in a general election.

sady d's top issue is feminism; of course she supports the more obviously feminist candidate, who also happens to a woman with a wealth of very high-level political experience

there are also fairly obvious reasons why even feminists might not choose to support HRC in a primary-- iraq vote, wall st. ties, hawkishness, touting the approval of henry kissinger, etc. everybody weighs the various issues differently, but SD insinuates that the only reason a progressive *wouldn't* vote for HRC is sexism, which seems myopic