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

^^ This is a decent reason to vote for Sanders. Much higher positives and much lower negatives.

In the fall we'll be looking back on statements like "we're sick and tired of your damn emails, Madam Secretary" as relics of a bygone era

^^ This is a decent reason to vote for Sanders. Much higher positives and much lower negatives.

― schwantz, Monday, February 22, 2016 2:29 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think there is any reason to believe sanders would have a better chance beating trump (or other republicans) than clinton

To be entirely fair, one imagines sanders's negatives going up a LOT if he were up against a candidate determined to destroy him on the basis of his progressivism rather than trying to claim that ground for themselves (in compromised "pragmatic" form, but still). I'm not calling that scenario for Trump, but it has to be allowed that for millions of Americans, their effective introduction to Bernie might be a blanket of superPAC-funded ads decrying his tax-and-spend liberal radicalism, his putative palling around with 60s terrorists, and "class warfare" and whatever else.

fascinatin' emails

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/

Sanders has a higher hate ceiling at this point, whereas I'd guess most people likely to hate Clinton already hate her.

I'm actually pretty fascinated to learn more about people who are both dining with Bret Easton Ellis and voting for Trump

I think the choice of best match-up depends on how important you think the disaffected voter vote is going to be. If that's going to be the deciding factor, then Sanders is probably a better candidate to run against Trump since he also has strong appeal with the disaffected bloc. I imagine if Hillary were the nominee, some Sanders supporters would defect to Trump in the general. Likewise if Rubio or Cruz were the GOP nominee, and they were running against Sanders, some of Trump's support would go to Sanders. However, you have to balance that against the moderates who might be put off by the relative extremism of a Trump or Sanders. The conventional wisdom is that the independents who tend to be more instinctively moderate decide general elections, but this year has not been following the usual playbook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CDQWhfnVkc

some Sanders supporters would defect to Trump in the general

this number seems extremely marginal at best

The conventional wisdom is that the independents who tend to be more instinctively moderate decide general elections, but this year has not been following the usual playbook.

that's b/c we haven't gotten to the general election yet

xp. I've heard more than one person say that their two favorite candidates are Sanders and Trump. There are some people who mainly want to send a message to the establishment. Those are the two best vehicles for that sentiment.

some Sanders supporters would defect to Trump in the general

this number seems extremely marginal at best

i would agree, but i've seen some crazy shit on facebook

I'm actually pretty fascinated to learn more about people who are both dining with Bret Easton Ellis and voting for Trump

feel like this is not surprising at all and that BEE's fans are more likely than general pop to be Trump supporters

some Sanders supporters would defect to Trump in the general

i know more than 3 ppl who have said that if sanders doesn't win the primary they'll vote for trump. presumably they respond more to style than substance

Xp I agree that HRC 's hate ceiling is likely maxed out, but I'm more concerned about her, for lack of a better term, "ambivalence" ceiling, which can impact turnout. We still don't know (a) how amicably Bernie and Hillary's camps will resolve differences or (b) just how much the likely slime of a trump vs Clinton slugfest will just turn people off in droves. I would hope that simply voting against Trump would be motivation enough to turn people out, but still ... nothing should be taken for granted.

I just talked to a dad at my kid's bday party who supports Sanders and said he'd vote for Trump over Clinton!

Sanders is toast. It'll be mathematically impossible for him by the end of March. Writing is already on the wall, Super Tuesday is his last stand.

Dr. C.: "trump's numbers did go up after paris and san Bernardino" - okay, my bad, but surely that means his numbers among Republicans, right? by which I mean, people already askeert of the muzzie boogieman?

I remain skeptical that a terrorist attack is going to move significant numbers of Democrats/Independents to Trump's column. Some folks see danger and want a badass mad dog. Others see danger and want a steady, sure hand on the tiller.

And fwiw I agree with o. nate that people whose vote can be changed by negging Hillary prolly weren't hers to begin with.

YES, we know that she shot Vince Foster in cold blood, then kept his severed penis as a trophy. In fact, she and Huma Abedin danced around it, singing lesbian anthems, while gleefully denying security requests from Benghazi.

YES, we know that she used blank checks from Goldman Sachs to funnel hush money to Bill's rape victims. Then, in a cocaine-fueled haze, she asked Communist Party HQ to send over a network tech to configure a strategically leak-prone e-mail server.

Clinton's supporters have heard it all and are still going to vote for her.

How does Sanders stack up against previous Democratic nomination challenges from the left? Much of it is before my time - my mom campaigned for Eugene McCarthy. Is Sanders more to the left and doing better than other historical left-wing protest (nomenclature?) candidates?

@BretEastonEllis
Just back from a dinner in West Hollywood: shocked the majority of the table was voting for Trump but they would never admit it publicly.

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 22 February 2016 19:16 (21 minutes ago) Permalink

was he trolling?

i live in west hollywood.

i pretty much get this vibe but never voice it because i can't really relate to a lot of angelenos.

there's definitely some weirdo second plane white people seem to communicate to each other with indirectly that purposefully excludes foreigners and i'm somehow treated like i'm in on it. it's bizarre

Clinton's supporters have heard it all and are still going to vote for her.

Sounds a lot like the rationale for anyone voting Trump!

I just talked to a dad at my kid's bday party who supports Sanders and said he'd vote for Trump over Clinton!

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, February 22, 2016 1:53 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is basically just saying "I support whichever candidate has a penis." And also "my cognition is roughly equivalent to that of a dog that eats his own shit."

YES, we know that she shot Vince Foster in cold blood, then kept his severed penis as a trophy. In fact, she and Huma Abedin danced around it, singing lesbian anthems, while gleefully denying security requests from Benghazi.

YES, we know that she used blank checks from Goldman Sachs to funnel hush money to Bill's rape victims. Then, in a cocaine-fueled haze, she asked Communist Party HQ to send over a network tech to configure a strategically leak-prone e-mail server.

Don't forget Mena airport and the boys on the tracks!

Dr. C.: "trump's numbers did go up after paris and san Bernardino" - okay, my bad, but surely that means his numbers among Republicans, right?

yes. i am on your side btw on trump's chances - just clarifying that one point!

it'd be great to see some charts comparing polling for sanders to the equivalent 'left challenger' in recent elections. like not just their peak numbers but a line graph for the whole campaign. my sense is that this is a more sustained deal that is interesting a much wider swath of people, but it'd be nice to make that less imprsesionistic and anecdotal. he's definitely doing better than bill bradley who was the first such character i hopelessly voted for.

And also "my cognition is roughly equivalent to that of a dog that eats his own shit."

Pretty big constituency you'd be ignoring in this country.

people who are both dining with Bret Easton Ellis and voting for Trump

cokeheads w fond memories of the 80s?

xxp

i'm still surprised people hand out business cards down here. i lol every time

but i've seen some crazy shit on facebook. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Abortion clinics on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those primary votes will be lost in time, like tears...in...rain.

McCarthy vs LBJ/Humphrey vs RFK/RFK is very hard to compare to Sanders v Clinton. 1968 was too chaotic to compare to anything else.

McCarthy and Humphrey were as chaotic as dog cushions.

Dr. Casino: I liked Bradley too, but the person I really would have loved to have seen more of is Paul Wellstone.

no ∞, it seemed very obvious to me BEE was not trolling

@BernieSanders
It's been 17 days, 16 hours and 32 minutes since @HillaryClinton said she would "look into" releasing her paid speeches to Wall Street.

Is Sanders more to the left and doing better than other historical left-wing protest (nomenclature?) candidates?

Absolutely.

envisioning BEE w a tiny Hillary Clinton doomsday clock that he obsessively checks

xp

i would agree, but i've seen some crazy shit on facebook

he's doing worse than Obama but better than Dean and Bradley. Go back much farther than that and you're looking at wider fields.

re: '68 - yeah but it's not like mccarthy was running as the leftie alternative to humphrey, he was running as the anti-vietnam alternative to johnson. pretty sure they were pretty similar on domestic policy for example.

feel like the bradley pattern honestly doesn't make sense until the 80s at least - it refers to a model of the party where the 'establishment' choice and presumed front-runner is the centrist, but there are others trying to keep the torch for pre-reagan-era liberalism alive and shift the window back left and all of that. maybe kennedy/carter is a prototype in a way. you get a clear left alternative with jackson in 88, but lacking the clear-from-a-year-out front-runner against which they're defined.

Sanders is farther to the left than Obama and I think there is a good argument to be made that Obama was not a left-wing protest candidate.

bill bradley who was the first such character i hopelessly voted for.

Bradley was my senator for many years in NJ and ugggggh, he was no lefty insurgent. Rubberstamped Reaganite contra funding, prioritized 'deficit reduction' in the '80s among other crimes. Held my nose and voted for him vs Gore in 2000, not fondly.

lol bradley was the speaker at my college graduation

he went on and on about the deficit

btw the raison d'etre of Eugene McCarthy's campaign was to get us out of Vietnam

that carpetbagger RFK changed his spots and leapt in once that had been illustrated to be a winning issue

i agree that bradley was not really much to the left of gore, but that's certainly what he was pitched and spun as. so he's relevant to the set under discussion re: the question: is sanders further left, and more successful, that previous characters in this role?

sure seems like it to me, I mean Gary Hart is the only other primary challenger since 1980 that I can think of who could even be thought of as leaning "left" at all!

easy to forget now, but dean was also understood that way.

no win in NY, and not 50-50, but i agree that it will be closer than people think.

― rmde bob (will), Monday, February 22, 2016 2:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

people saying 50/50 like this itt, do you mean the outcome is totally uncertain, or the popular vote will be close to even for each candidate?

they are different. e.g. the 2012 was never really in doubt, but the popular vote was close to even.

Hart was not to the left of Mondale. He campaigned against the Great Society and New Deal!

See: Atari Democrats.

Mondale was really the last of the New Deal true believers.

New Ideas (TM) xp

except for the hotzy action on the trail, that was his old idea

caek: popular vote will be closer than any reasonable person should feel comfortable with.

not sure if Trump can pick up any states that Romney lost, but nothing surprises me at this point.

the popular vote is always "close", but there seems to be a lot of confusion that that implies incertainty