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

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

xxp I was going to say that Cruz definitely knows there's a Supreme Court, and have been struck by the idea of a Republican president nominating him to it.

xp The thing is I think SD is identifying real sexism, I don't think it's just a matter of seeing everything through a distorting lens. I do see a lot of ugly, stupid comments from male Sanders supporters. Granted, we're talking about the internet, so you don't really know who you're dealing with or how many there are. But I have seen a few friends or friends of friends do it, and I really, really wish men would just stop accusing women of only voting for Hillary because she's a woman, that is just so not men's place to say, and it smacks of conservative "race card" type rhetoric. And I get how that probably makes SD feel even more like circling the wagons around Hillary.

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.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, February 8, 2016 4:17 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah - i mean in general 538's coverage has felt very tone-deaf and bro-ishly stubborn this time around, and this is a great example - they sort of hedged their debate coverage with "mind you, we're watching these candidates a lot and maybe regular people won't have the same reactions we did," but they still seemed to really miss the potency of the christie/rubio exchange. they parsed the debate through kind of bland filters that fit their expertise but in the process i think miss the emotional/affective narrative stuff that people often respond very much to.

like a lot of it will sound like "candidate x keeps talking about squirrel-hunting - that probably won't help him, as polling suggests most americans consider squirrels a minor issue, and a slim majority support the right to hunt squirrels on your own property" which seems fine except that in the exchange they're analyzing, candidate x accused candidate y of engaging in bloody ritualistic sacrifice of squirrels to an elder god. which you think might get the voters excited, but won't register. "but it doesn't look like the byplay hurt candidate y - there was a burst of googling his name right after that! back over to you, nate."

i'm sure she is! xp

xp comment deleted because man alive otm.

Animal spirits. Elections aren't all about "policy." Trump should make that clear enough.

xp The thing is I think SD is identifying real sexism, I don't think it's just a matter of seeing everything through a distorting lens. I do see a lot of ugly, stupid comments from male Sanders supporters. Granted, we're talking about the internet, so you don't really know who you're dealing with or how many there are. But I have seen a few friends or friends of friends do it, and I really, really wish men would just stop accusing women of only voting for Hillary because she's a woman, that is just so not men's place to say, and it smacks of conservative "race card" type rhetoric. And I get how that probably makes SD feel even more like circling the wagons around Hillary.

^^^ This is an actual problem.

A college friend of mine (one who I referenced in an earlier thread, the one who dismissed Black Lives Matters protesters' complaints about Sanders as not mattering unless they turned into votes) was called a feminazi cunt by a Sanders supporter for saying that she didn't think that all concerned parties agreeing to use a coin toss to break a voting deadlock at a caucus site was by definition a bad idea. She had been waffling between Sanders and Clinton before that conversation with a strong lean towards Sanders; she is now firmly and irrevocably supporting Clinton.

I expect this in-fighting is gonna get worse before it gets better, but thankfully it should all be over in a month or so

xp ugh Dan, that's disgusting

yeah, bleah. very disheartening. i definitely don't discount the existence of 'bernie bros,' especially with stories like that in mind.

were there 'Obama bros'?

kind of, but the dynamic there was different since race was a factor as well

just really illustrates one can be a purported "social progressive" and still be a complete asshole/waste of oxygen. there was a dude on another message board I posted to years ago who would post really well thought-out progressive liberal essays and yet would address women like "shut the fuck up, bitch!" on the board.

lots of my FB friends are what I call "theatre liberals" which = basically when you break down their politics, they're really right of center, but they like gay people and minorities and don't have any money.

I think the berniebro phenom is overstated but has a grain of truth and that's why it won't die in the media.

BTW yeah there was some version of "Obama bros", I think it was "Obama boys"

tbh Progressives at the turn of the 20th century were assholes by our standards.

there's a popular gay blog called JoeMyGod, and if you'd like to read some vicious, stupid comments made by homos for Hillary to Sanders supporters i recommend the comments there unto you.

were there 'Obama bros'?

posted an '08 salon column about them this morning

our "progressive" candidate in 2008 didn't even support gay marriage at the time of election. really all that illustrates is how far the nation shifted on that topic in a very short period of time (cos he flip flopped on that issue a number of times in the 90s/early 2000s)

bernie bros were definitely former ron paul bros