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

ordinary GOP primary dog whistling can maybe be walked back but "keep out the Muslims and deport illegals" is gonna stay stuck to you.

yeah he's been too explicitly racist, there's no "take backsies" about that shit

bernie-is-cool memes are weird because they're kinda all making fun of him on some level for being a dull old dude. I don't think you can't run a national campaign on the so-uncool-it's-cool hipster aesthetic. there's something kinda defeatist about the whole thing.

― iatee, Thursday, 11 February 2016 16:37 (11 minutes ago) Permalink

I thought this at first too, but it's almost like he rode the meme train until he could reach escape velocity and now he's starting to get a serious look.

LOL Sanders came perilously close to a Dean Scream moment in his NH acceptance speech. MSNBC uses it constantly but it doesn't have the full wacko factor

that wang article is interesting but a bit goofy - - he goes to all the trouble of developing a state-by-state model of the delegate rules, and then turns immediately to national polls to declare that everyone but trump will fail to meet the minimum thresholds and thus get "cut off at the knees." so far that wouldn't matter - nobody but trump got above 20% in new hampshire. but if the field narrows even just a little, that's not going to be true anymore - even just allowing for the 11% that christie and fiorina got, that has to go somewhere.

anyway then he says that, if the rivals drop out, trump will need to get up to around 40%. but he doesn't give any reason to think that that will happen, which is the whole point of the "ceiling" argument he's discussing. last i checked (and maybe this has changed) trump was not the second-choice of the people who support the likely-to-drop-outs. trump is trump, if you like him at all you probably are voting for him already.

if one of jeb, rubio or kasich actually calls it quits after another round or two, then the whole model's out the window. he does make an interesting argument for why each of those three are unlikely to drop out specifically before super tuesday, but i think it's undercooked - kasich hoping to be the favorite son in ohio is like, okay, fine, but if he doesn't see a wider map than that one state would he really keep going? would he have been able to make a good donor sales pitch in the interim for it to be plausible that he's fielding new hampshire like numbers in all those other states? (his national numbers, not included here, are around 2% right now, though of course it's possible new hampshire will boost his profile. but he could be an effective dropout in most of the country without actually dropping out.)

south carolina could turn out to be bush or carson's time to bail - if they can't make it in iowa, new hampshire, or there, they're running out of core constituencies (basically, rustbelt and far west still remain). most likely, if rubio repeats his really awful new hampshire results i think there'll be a consensus that this once-great-hope is actually a big ol' loser; i can see him quitting before bush who in a way has more on the line despite obviously wanting it way less. oliver stone should get on that. anyway, amazingly imho, there's been no polling in either state in the last three weeks, which is way more than enough time for someone to be running up a surge, for trump to have deflated after iowa, for rubio to have flatlined after his debate, for jeb to have mounted a kasich-like creep up into second, god knows. there is a lot more reason to expect some kind of big shift (especially in such a big field) in the late days leading up to a primary, than to expect that there won't be, though maybe 538 or wang could data-fy that claim.

what was it? xp

w/ Trump we're not talking about cynicism toward the lowbrows, but the inability to fake anything else ("I could shoot somebody" etc).

oliver stone should get on that.

lol

we're getting into the "crazy reverend says what" part already, yaaay

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cruz-campaign-defends-controversial-pastor-who-says-god-sent-hitler-hunt-jews

Pedantry alert, but actually the red bar, the way it's labeled, doesn't represent all of the votes in the Republican primary, just the 35% of them that went to Trump (likewise the blue bar represents the 60% of the Democratic votes that went to Sanders). Since 60% of 249k is 149k votes for Bernie, vs. 35% of 284k or 99k votes for Trump, so the blue bar should be 1.5x taller than the red bar.

it's a stacked column bar chart, so each bar does represent all of the votes for each respective party. each bar adds up to ~100% (the write-in votes/"other" make up the remaining portion). it's above the fold now, so i know everyone will love if i re-post this image:

http://i.imgur.com/8vl5K3i.jpg

you're correct that bernie's portion of the bar should be ~1.5x taller than trumps portion of the bar, since he received roughly 1.5x the votes of trump. but the overall height of the republican bar should be taller than the democrat bar, because more votes were cast overall for republicans.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/ <<< despite its many flaws and overdeterminations of the relevant variables, this is still 538's most interesting widget/contribution this election. it suggests, maybe wrongly, that trump's core groups, by themselves, just can't win an election in the america that we currently have, even assuming good turnout, IF we also assume that trump turns so many people off so much that some of his "anti" groups shift their allegiances a little bit blue-wards. i really can't imagine the hispanic vote being only ("only") 71% democratic if trump was the republican nominee. or that college-educated whites would still tilt narrowly republican.

it's a stacked column bar chart

I guess you're right, but then I'd say the choice of that type of chart is deeply misleading to begin with, because Trump gets to be so much higher than Bernie despite receiving fewer votes.

o.nate, i think you're viewing it as a 3D column chart, where (for example) it's displaying sanders' 60% and then it's just layering Clinton's in front of it to show the difference. if that were the case, clinton's portion of the bar should be 2/3 of sanders', since she received ~2/3 of the votes that he did. but if you look at the image, her portion is only a little less than half of bernie's. that's because it's a stacked column graph, where each bar adds up to 100%, so bernie's 60% gives him 60% of the space of the column, and clinton's 39% gives her the other 39% of the space.

(to everyone else, i am sorry)

Good point.

we're getting into the "crazy reverend says what" part already, yaaay

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cruz-campaign-defends-controversial-pastor-who-says-god-sent-hitler-hunt-jews

I bet IHoP is thrilled that this guy is starting to get headlines

the thing about sanders supporters that bothers me the most is that it isn't sufficient that they prefer sanders to hillary but they seem compelled to present hillary in the worst, least good faith light as possible.

Which will make it a difficult pivot for them if she wins the nomination.

In contrast Bernie's kept his messaging positive, and refrained from capitalizing on her liabilities (cf. "we're sick of hearing about your damn emails"). Possibly because attacking Hillary can backfire with dem constituencies that he'd need later. (plus, for some, having the perception out there of being mean to a woman can be nagl)

Maybe my memory is rosy in retrospect, but I don't recall Obama negging Hillary much in 2008. He damned her with faint praise ("likeable enough") but most of his messaging was mostly around a positive future vision. So it may be that Sanders is working from the playbook of a strategy that has been proven - by the only dude who has beaten her in an election before.

Nah, Hillary took on the majority of the negging, iirc.

Right, not disputing that she can get nasty. Just pointing out that (a) There is a contrast in tone between Sanders's supporters and Sanders himself, and (b) Both Obama and Sanders have generally avoided attacking Clinton. Is this because they're such standup gentlemensches? Or because they've made a calculation that it won't work and may possibly backfire.

it would totally backfire

It would massively backfire

I couldn't imagine that it wouldn't be a disaster.

salon just dropped a camille paglia piece. p sure she already hated hillary, and for sure has always hated gloria steinem.

the sentence "Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within" appears. you get the point i think.

would've figured Paglia was into fascists, they're so sexy

oh how I remember fondly Paglia's spring 2008 Hillary columns

"Which will make it a difficult pivot for them if she wins the nomination."

No it won't any more than it made it difficult for Clinton supporters (with a few exceptions) to pivot to Obama eight years ago.

in other news JEB! demonstrates Optimal-Tip-to-Tip Efficiency
https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/02/10/Others/Images/2016-02-10/JEBSC0361455146000.jpg?uuid=483RENBLEeWQ0zTCxCZTrA

Alex: "No it won't any more than it made it difficult for Clinton supporters (with a few exceptions) to pivot to Obama eight years ago."

Fair point. I know righties were counting on massive PUMA defections that didn't ultimately occur. Are Bern-feelers the new PUMAs?

have we had any andrew sullivan sightings this primary season? i'm sure he has fantastic hillary takes

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.

― o. nate, Thursday, February 11, 2016 2:12 AM (16 hours ago)

this is true and yet one of the weirdest things about our current weird situation is that i can imagine a number of scenarios where sanders could win the general election. like in a hypothetical race between sanders and trump i think sanders would win, ppl hate and fear the donald trump whose face is everywhere every day a lot more than they fear the word "socialist."

@CornelWest
#FeelTheBern

Actually on second thought (to Alex in SF) the Clinton-to-Obama pivot was easier. tbh I made it myself, with no effort at all.

Clinton supporters circa 2008 weren't thinking, "This Obama guy is evil incarnate and he will drive the country toward disaster." It was more like, "I like what he's saying, but I don't know that he can do what he's promising."

(Sound familiar?)

I'm looking at the anti-Clinton content of my pro-Bernie Facebook peeps and it's stuff that's much more difficult to walk back than "sounds great, but can he really do it?"

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.

Good thing nobody is describing themselves as a socialist.

There have already been several things that have happened this election season that many/most said would not happen, starting with Trump's endurance. Atmosphere feels a little like what they call in the stock market world "a correction." Which makes sense. Apparently few in America seem to be terribly happy/secure, and even if they can't pinpoint exactly what it is they want, they definitely know what they don't want. Like preparing dinner for picky kids.

"I'm hungry!"
"OK, what do you want for dinner?"
"I don't know."
"Do you want hot dogs?"
"No!'
"Chicken?"
"No!"
"Soup? Pasta?"
"No!"
"Then what do you want?"
"I don't know!"

salon just dropped a camille paglia piece. p sure she already hated hillary, and for sure has always hated gloria steinem.

the sentence "Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within" appears. you get the point i think.

― goole, Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:10 AM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

she had one in salon a few weeks ago, billed as "the story too hot for the new york times" and all about how hillary hates and seeks to dominate men

The non-existent Bosnian sniper fire may have been a shadowy memory of the strafing dictates of an authoritarian father, against whom mother and daughter were united in conspiratorial defiance.

not making this up, as dave barry used to say

i guess we've already done this but hey it's february:

dem running mates? Bernie's more or less committed to Warren, yes? Is the new presumption that Clinton would pick up Bernie?

given the messiness of the past two years, do republican running mates necessarily come from outside of the clown car? who the fuck could trump conceivably pick? Schwarzenegger? and more realistically where do cruz and/or rubio look?

Is the new presumption that Clinton would pick up Bernie?

idk if this is something people are saying might happen but it sure would be pointless and sad

A Bernie/Warren bill would be a terrible idea. Can't think of any other running mate that would enhance his chances without diluting his brand. But Warren is just right where she is, staying put. And then she can either run in 8 years or in 4 after a disastrous Repub admin.

GOP could pick pretty much anyone as a running mate at this point. Bruce Willis, Megyn Kelly, Barney the Dinosaur.

Is the new presumption that Clinton would pick up Bernie?

Julian Castro

who the fuck could trump conceivably pick? Schwarzenegger?

this is a weird thing I never thought I would say but Schwarzenegger is a) smarter than Trump and b) not really conservative either (he believes in climate change!)

feel pretty confident that warren is staying in the senate & not running for president ever

Just pointing out that (a) There is a contrast in tone between Sanders's supporters and Sanders himself

What is surprising to me is that, afaics, Bernie has not been delegating the job of attacking HRC to a set of surrogates, which is the traditional tactic. Bernie just doesn't seem to have a kennel of attack dogs.

The greatest feeling you can get in a gym, or the most satisfying feeling you can get in the gym is... The TRump. Let's say you train your biceps. Blood is rushing into your muscles and that's what we call The Trump. You muscles get a really tight feeling, like your skin is going to explode any minute, and it's really tight - it's like somebody blowing air into it, into your muscle. It just blows up, and it feels really different. It feels fantastic.

It's as satisfying to me as, uh, coming is, you know? As, ah, having sex with a woman and coming. And so can you believe how much I am in heaven? I am like, uh, getting the feeling of coming in a gym, I'm getting the feeling of coming at home, I'm getting the feeling of coming backstage when I Trump up, when I pose in front of 5,000 people, I get the same feeling, so I am coming day and night. I mean, it's terrific. Right? So you know, I am in heaven.

Paul Ryan quote?

I agree re: Castro.

Good demographics, doesn't take a key Senator out of the chamber, and has the added bonus of tweaking the noses of old-school anticommunists with the whole "Castro" thing.

Castro. Cory Booker?

Kind of wondering what role the economy is going to play in all this -- odds are going up that we'll have the beginnings of a new economic crisis before the general, and at a minimum the stock market is looking terrible. If the real economy and not just the stock market gets worse, that makes Obama's legacy look a little less like something you want to run on. I'm not sure whether that's a greater benefit to Sanders (loves hammering Wall Street) or the GOP though.

hillary is not picking bernie as her VP, lol

this is true and yet one of the weirdest things about our current weird situation is that i can imagine a number of scenarios where sanders could win the general election. like in a hypothetical race between sanders and trump i think sanders would win, ppl hate and fear the donald trump whose face is everywhere every day a lot more than they fear the word "socialist."

I think trump vs sanders is the only conceivable scenario where sanders becomes president

but it is also a scenario where donald trump has a decent chance of becoming leader of the free world.

Schwarzenegger is not eligible - LOOK AT HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE. love the idea that trump would just say fuck it and pick another conservative celebrity - Ed Harris isn't doing much these days. he's definitely crazy enough. but at the same time he's foxy enough that he might look for someone that makes the ticket look more "credible" according to conventional metrics. a general or something - they haven't voted for/against anything and they just stand around having gravitas. plus they won't steal the spotlight.

sanders/warren seems silly to me. not sure who exactly it adds to his coalition, though maybe i'm in a sort of liberal facebook/NPR bubble where it seems to me like they have almost exactly the same fans as it is. and yeah, she's doing good work in the senate and a president bernie will seriously need her there championing his stuff. in this fantasy world where he gets the nom, i feel like he'd want someone that shores up his "there's nothing un-american about all this" cred without contradicting the actual politics. a union-friendly person, like a joe biden without the credit-card baggage. there's also the maintaining-minority-turnout thing, which would depend on exactly how he got to the nomination (not possible without his minority numbers having gone up along the way). any energizing, young-but-not-too-young minority steelworker-turned-governors out there? hillary i think would basically be looking for that same exact person, minus the scruples about credit cards. hell maybe she'd just pick biden on a "stay the course, are you better off than you were eight years ago" kinda thing.

i think never-be-the-nominee-sanders could also beat ted cruz, but more narrowly, and it will depend on a very steady, unrelenting let's-remind-you-how-crazy-this-motherfucker-is campaign. cruz would be playing the very familiar game of pretending to be just an ordinary guy in a suit who cares about the middle class and being tough and solving america's problems, not ranting about eliminating most of the government as part of a strict construction of the constitution. it would be easy for someone not paying close attention to miss how much he really is the Dead Zone candidate, and think "ehh, he seems kinda middle of the road and i've been told sanders is a crazy communist."

i would think cruz is completely unelectable nationally because he is personally incredibly odious.

but you know, nixon. although maybe nixon didn't come across quite as oily in 1968? i wasn't around.