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

Super Tuesday primaries:

Alabama
American Samoa
Arkansas
Colorado
Democrats Abroad
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

can see Sanders picking up Massachusetts, Colorado and maybe Minnesota there but the rest gtfo

i'm thinking he's got vermont too

in contrast to Sanders, one of Obama's biggest assets was that he could pick up states in the South - Sanders doing that seems nigh impossible

oh right, missed Vermont lol

i mean isn't he still like -40 among minorities? polling well among white people will only win you the republican nomination.

― diana krallice (rushomancy), Wednesday, February 10, 2016 6:23 PM (1 minute ago)

there hasn't been a whole lot of recent polling on this. he also btw won the black vote in NH, though i'm not sure you can extrapolate much to southern states

I hear American Samoa is super liberal

xp

he also btw won the black vote in NH

where they make up a whopping 1.5% of the population

SC is almost 30% black

Either of them would eat Sanders for breakfast with demagoguery/dirty tricks. You need someone who's survived the GOP slime machine and knows how to fight fire with fire.

I think this is what's hurting Clinton, actually, the fear campaign, and there have been degrees of it coming from her side for months. It comes off patronizing misdirection. "Yes, yes, of course I'm progressive, but in order to pass a progressive agenda you first have to get elected, and I'm the only one standing between progressive values and the Republicans rolling everything back." People just aren't biting. Not that the GOP won't roll everything back, but that she's someone the only one qualified to protect us all. It also ties in a little bit with her trustworthiness. She sounds like she's selling something, and she is - herself. Her campaign is about her, but her personality can't quite support that sort of charisma-driven politics. IMO.

Of course, she's much better, or at least much more convincing, when she's not on the defensive, but frankly she's almost always on the defensive, because she's always being criticized. Sometimes legitimately, sometimes not, but at this point it's put her in a permanent circle the wagons position, and that circle does not seem to be expanding. Vicious cycle.

right can't draw a whole lot of conclusions from that xxp shaky

Her campaign is about her, but her personality can't quite support that sort of charisma-driven politics

agree w this - she needs a new personality!

she should say some crazy shit, just fly off the handle, maybe cry

Nevada:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-5337.html

weirdly had no polling in January?

Let's be clear: Bill Clinton may have survived the slime machine, but HRC has no record of having done the same. 2000 and 2006 were pro forma Senate races.

Celebs and their candidates:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca39mLOUkAA9qw7.jpg

dennis rodman and mike tyson being in trump's camp is too perfect

BTW, how do I get the super-offensive original title to disappear from my bookmarks? I've tried removing bookmark and re-adding, but no dice.

haha that's on my bookmark as well, iirc there is no fix

suck it, losers

it's how Trump would want it

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ad38087bac/donald-trump-art-of-the-deal-movie?_cc=__d___&_ccid=ab1558a34ae1328d

Let's be clear: Bill Clinton may have survived the slime machine, but HRC has no record of having done the same. 2000 and 2006 were pro forma Senate races.

the standards (or non-standards) applied to HRC here are crazy. she's been slimed endlessly, managed to be the D's second choice in 2008 and is the frontrunner now. that is some record of survival.

"Οὖτις
Posted: February 10, 2016 at 5:24:09 PM
can see Sanders picking up Massachusetts, Colorado and maybe Minnesota there but the rest gtfo"
Minnesota is a sure thing for Sanders, no question

that is some record of survival

if you mean she didn't get caught doing something that forced her to resign, okay. she hasn't won any tough elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/10/congressional-black-caucus-to-formally-endorse-clinton-on-thursday/

lol @ patronizing shit about the "younger generation" though, that always plays well

nonetheless, I'd bet there's more old black primary voters than young black primary voters, both in SC and in general

f you mean she didn't get caught doing something that forced her to resign, okay. she hasn't won any tough elections.

we were taking about crimes? thought the discussion was about slime?

running for the senate in New York is a walk in the park/getting confirmed as BHO's SoS is a breeze, get back to me when you've really accomplished something?

ah, our first true blue hillary fan

http://ermel.org/gerbelblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bxburning.jpg

Sanders’s rise, particularly among young voters — even young African-American voters — has struck a nerve with veteran black caucus members who think the new generation is behaving naively.

“Many of these are first-time voters and Senator Sanders’ message resonates with the younger generation because of the promises that he is making,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), chairman of the CBC. “But Mrs. Clinton and others are going to challenge the message by suggesting that it is unrealistic to believe that we can accomplish all of the things that Senator Sanders proposes.”

“They need to understand that when a candidate presents a message, you’ve got to pierce the message to determine whether or not it’s realistic, given the political climate that we live in,” Butterfield said. “It’s not a negative, it’s not an aspersion on the new voter. It’s the fact that many of them are inexperienced and have not gone through a presidential election cycle before.”

lather, rinse, repeat

xp (thx)

admit that I lean that way (though the whole process thus far has been dispiriting, and I've remained only distantly engaged), but tired of the challopsy bar setting for HRC and glib throwing about of terms like disastrous re: her tenure as SoS.

Michelle Goldberg explains why she'll vote for Clinton.

Perhaps most significantly, Clinton is running against a very different opponent this time around. Barack Obama is an epochal political talent who promised to expand the Democratic coalition. Bernie Sanders is a mensch whose politics are more or less my own, but I’m convinced he’d be eviscerated in a general election. I know that the Sanders camp believes they can turn out people who’ve become alienated from the political process. As long as I’ve been following politics, it has been a left-wing fantasy that legions of disconnected non-voters will suddenly flood the polls if they’re offered a sufficiently progressive candidate. I’ve never seen anything save wishful thinking to back it up.

boils down to this + she thinks hillary's sufficiently changed in the past 8 years

Again, what makes her more likely to win a presidential race? How is she "pragmatic" and all that?

Washington (CNN)Ben Carson said Wednesday he will be staying in the Republican race, despite a poor showing in New Hampshire, and is hoping to win big in South Carolina.

"I'm not getting any pressure from our millions of supporters (to leave the race). I'm getting a lot of pressure to make sure I stay in the race," Carson told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead." "You know, they're reminding me that I'm here because I responded to their imploring me to get involved. And I respect that and I'm not just going to walk away from the millions of people who are supporting me."

Carson came in second-to-last place Tuesday night, beating only former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. His decision to stick in the race comes even as two candidates who beat him there, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie, announced Wednesday they were ending their bids.

But Carson, who at one point attracted strong support from evangelical voters, said he expected to do well in South Carolina.

"I think I can win South Carolina. We're going to be putting a lot of time resources and effort here," Carson said.

I'm kind of concerned about the quality & competence of the eventual Clinton appointees. Like, we're already kind of on the C/D-list of the Obama-era appointment talent pool. One of my biggest disappointments with this administration is in its appointee selections - shit, Chris Hayes wrote his goddamn book about it and the book's *subtitle* was America After Meritocracy - and a Clinton administration is going to bring in a lot of senior officials who roll at about the same level of competence as her State Department staff. We are going to be dialing down the overall competence of federal leadership from a 6 to about a 4.

So what I just said is that this really is going to suck no matter who wins. Lesser of two evils indeed, possibly like I've never experienced.

As long as I’ve been following politics, it has been a left-wing fantasy that legions of disconnected non-voters will suddenly flood the polls if they’re offered a sufficiently progressive candidate. I’ve never seen anything save wishful thinking to back it up.

this kinda did happen, then these fuckin' people DID NOT VOTE in 2010 (and any election except maybe 2012) and we got hard core gerrymandering and GOP control of 37 states.

which is why the bernie bros on reddit can fuck right off, imo

Oh and just for some extra doomsayin' if you thought the gross insubordination and other general bullshit from our boys in uniform has been disgusting under Obama, hoo boy are we in for a treat under HC

It's definitely true that if poor people in this country voted at the same rates as the well-off, the political landscape would look a lot different than it does now. I don't believe any one candidate, no matter who progressive their message is, is going to change that though. A small, symbolic financial penalty for not voting would be awesome, and having elections on a Saturday (or better yet a national holiday) would help too.

Again, what makes her more likely to win a presidential race? How is she "pragmatic" and all that?

I think it's pretty simple actually. Bernie is too far left. There's no way the country is going to elect a self-described socialist. It will not happen.

I'm not referring to Sanders. His self-professed mild socialism doesn't by default make HRC the more formidable candidate. She's a weak general election candidate.

"I think I can win South Carolina. We're going to be putting a lot of time resources and effort here," Carson said.

I would be super excited to see Ben Carson win South Carolina and Cruz take a beating there as a result! Make it so, Ben. I'm very ready for that particular chaos to happen.

Barack Obama is an epochal political talent

has she been smoking the same shit for 8 years? he's been good at winning elections and there it stops.

His self-professed mild socialism doesn't by default make HRC the more formidable candidate.

It's not just that he uses the term "socialist". I think his specific policies, as a whole, are just too far left to be viable in a national election. I think that does by default make HRC a better candidate. Her policy goals are more realistic.

the ones she's borrowed from Sanders?

i'm moving to the moon due to this election

or becoming a caveman. not sure which

the ones she's borrowed from Sanders?

Not sure which ones in particular you're referring to. I think she could afford to move a bit to the left to hopefully peel off some of Sanders support in the primary, without moving so far so as to endanger her chances in the general, but it would be a delicate balancing act.