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

same guy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYJa5k6U0AErF3l.jpg:large

bottom line, this might be a low-turnout election

good graph to look at when you are feeling unchill karl

feeling more chill, yesss...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYJa5k6U0AErF3l.jpg:large

feeling a little more chilly but memories of recent warmth keep me going

a graph to cherish in the bitter watches of the night

everyone quit talking
i'm thinking about my graph

the upcoming election will be about whether we prefer our acne in the form of blackheads or whiteheads

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html

the article is based around the fact that "Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70", but somehow they never manage to explicitly mention that they're tied 51-51 in terms of delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses

im v much hating this superdelegates narrative, too. i intro'd by gov/econ class today with an "elected delegate" count at 51 apiece in protest.

Weren't HIllary people up in arms over superdelegates around Super Tuesday in 2008 because Obama was picking up a bunch?

shhhhh, youerrrrrr RUUUUUining the New York Times' narrative and their March 2 "Sanders Must Bow Out" editorial!

nyt doesn't even try to disguise their Hillary slant in their reporting, never mind the editorial pages.

Um? 'A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each.'

Also, since the first states have been slanted to Sanders, a tie means Clinton is doing best. She's won. She won when she tied in Iowa, basically.

How does this work?

'Mr. Devine, a veteran of presidential campaigns and a longtime expert in delegate strategy, said that if Mr. Sanders could end up close to Mrs. Clinton in the pledged delegate count, the senator and his team would lobby superdelegates from the states he won to reflect the will of their voters, defect from her and give him a margin to win the nomination.'

Democrat superdelegates are unpledged, can vote as they wish - Republicans are mostly constrained to reflect their home states. Any statement of intent before the convention is non-binding.

Not by accident of course, Democratic superdelegates are specifically there to prevent 'unelectable' candidates.

Yeah, but I meant, if you're losing the pledged delegate count, ie. the popular vote, how do you expect to win the nomination by lobbying superdelegates to 'reflect the will of their voters'?

It sounds either self-evidently impossible, or slightly fishy?

I guess the idea is that if it's 49/51 in delegates gained from votes, it looks bad if it's 25-75 counting superdelegates. I'm sure Sanders' campaign would like more leverage going into the convention, but as Doctor Casino was saying on the previous thread, it's an explicitly anti-democratic procedure, that's the point.

Just out of interest, what makes you guess to that? It really isn't what he's saying.

I'm guessing that by reading the sentence you quoted? Obviously it won't tip them over to victory, but then this is already a double impossibility - he won't get the pledged delegates and he won't convince the superdelegates.

there are not enough superdelegates to turn 49-51 elected delegates into 25-75 total delegates

x-post: But the sentence I quoted specifically spoke about how Sanders could 'win the nomination', so how can it not be about 'victory'?

"Yeah, but I meant, if you're losing the pledged delegate count, ie. the popular vote, how do you expect to win the nomination by lobbying superdelegates to 'reflect the will of their voters'?"

There is not exactly a popular vote during the primaries, because a lot of states hold caucuses. Also the way the delegates are pledged by state is often rather arcane. It's not impossible to imagine that a candidate could win a plurality of states, but lose in the wrong states, come in behind in the pledged delegate count and then make a case that they should win to the superdelegates. Do I think Sanders is likely to be able to make that case? No.

The superdelegates moved over to Obama--gradually at first, then quickly--as his lead in pledged delegates solidified. The only time I thought there was a real mess in the making was when the Wright story materialized (and before it was quelled, more or less, with the Philadelphia speech); I thought that might be a situation where the party elders/establishment or whatever you want to call them stepped in and circumvented someone they considered mortally wounded. Everything was muddled a bit, too, by Florida and Michigan's status being in limbo for a time in 2008--I seem to remember that Clinton's side had a habit of including those delegates (or at least most of them) in their totals.

Alex's scenario was pretty much how 2008 unfolded: Obama was way ahead in number of states, but Clinton was winning the more populous ones, Michigan and Florida were hanging out there waiting to be adjudicated, and the delegate count remained close most of the way.

Yeah except Michigan was never going to be counted because Obama's name was not even on the ballot.

That's right...I think they were trying to reach some agreement where the not-Clinton votes ("other" on the ballot?) were going to go to Obama. That was a compromise that either Clinton or Obama threw out there--a lot of people voted but didn't vote for Clinton.

I'm going by memory--it was a big deal at the time and very murky.

I'd say it was pretty much how 2008 unfolded except (not counting Michigan and Florida--and everyone had agreed not to count either beforehand) Obama ultimately won the popular vote, the pledged delegates, the superdelegates and the most states. Winning all four definitely made it basically impossible for Clinton to come in with a serious "I still reflect the will of the voters."

Not that she didn't try mind you, but IIRC the argument was more about general election electability than it was about math.

Didn't Hillary win the popular vote? Wiki says so. But due to caucuses, doesn't really matter.

It's complicated because she overwhelming won two states where the votes were basically not counted and none of the candidates campaigned in (Florida and Michigan). In Michigan Obama's name is not even on the ballot. If you take away those states then Obama wins the "popular vote" for whatever it is worth.

Here's the way it unfolded by date (working from the bottom):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

And here's the Michigan mess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008

I'd forgotten Michigan and Florida happened so early. So if you track it from Iowa, it was essentially those two states that muddied everything; if you take them out--and at the time, there was a clear decision from the DNC that they wouldn't count because both jumped the schedule--Obama was ahead the whole way. But Clinton's side wouldn't relent; they kept including lopsided totals for both states in their own count.

Ok. I also just read that Clinton lost nearly every caucus in 08, which I guess would diminish Obama's vote total.

" Winning all four definitely made it basically impossible for Clinton to come in with a serious "I still reflect the will of the voters." = right.

I do recall seeing someone making the argument that Hillary had gotten more votes from _Democrats_ - that is, votes in closed primaries and votes in Democratic strongholds - so she was the more strategic choice. Even though I supported her at the time I did not find this a convincing argument. Nope, she needed to start winning more primaries. Just as Bernie needs to do now.

(FWIW I don't think Hillary herself or her campaign was making these arguments, I just saw them being made by Internet crankazoids.)

The same thing is happening this year! Clinton actually won the vote of registered Democrats in New Hampshire. But it's what inevitably happens when your opponent is so good with young voters, I guess. Also, a really really really bad argument, you need to get beyond the base to win elections, right?

I think there's a question about which is more important: voter turnout from the base or winning the moderates.

You do, but it's also true that you need your votes to be in the right places.

It does you no good in the Electoral College to lose Wyoming by 10 points instead of losing Wyoming by 20 points.

Nor does it do you any good to win California by 20 points instead of winning California by 10 points.

To secure the election you need to just barely hold all the safe states and just barely win key swing states (OH, VA, FL).

so the Governor Lepetomanes of the GOP have decided Rubio's the One (to save their phony-baloney jobs)!

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/270359-establishment-turns-to-rubio-to-stop-trump

Ezra's at it again

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11086292/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-wonks

Composing poetry from selected lines in Jeb! fundraising emails:

https://m.facebook.com/notes/wondermark/here-is-a-poem-i-composed-using-only-phrases-from-jebs-fundraising-emails/10154034987454225/

...The time for waiting is over, Friend.
Tomorrow, the race takes an important turn.
the fight is far from over
the real fight begins now
This race is just getting started.
Now:
we will shock the world
and beyond.
But
If we don’t raise $250,000 in the next 48 hours, we put it all at risk.

Rubio on his minority outreach:

"Just this afternoon, I was onstage receiving the endorsement of an Indian American governor from South Carolina, who has endorsed a Cuban American from Florida. And I was standing next to the African American Republican senator from South Carolina. That sounds pretty minority to me," he said.

Nice try, but he still needs to find two Jews and a cripple, a la James Watt.

that's so minority

Voice columnist Roy Edroso now refers to the Republican frontrunner as Donald “This Time He’s Gone Too Far” Trump.

brian beutler: trump is the nominee

https://newrepublic.com/article/130334/will-republicans-start-recognizing-screwed-are

The very idea that Trump will encounter resistance outside the South is based on a simplistic and doubly inapt conception of “moderation.” The first premise is that, by promising to appeal outside of the Republican Party’s typical constituencies, Rubio is by definition more moderate than Trump; the second is that appealing to the center in a general election is no different than appealing to “moderate” Republicans in a GOP primary.

If this race is proving anything, though, it’s that what constitutes “moderation” to elite conservatives (relative dovishness on immigration aimed at swing voters in a general election) isn’t what constitutes moderation among Republican voters (restrictionist immigration policy paired with heterodox support for redistributive social policies). The big flaw in the assumption that Rubio (or anyone, really) can make up ground against Trump in blue states is that “moderate” voters are actually Trump’s ace in the hole.

Ezra's at it again

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11086292/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-wonks

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:00 AM (51 minutes ago)

i think this is a fair piece -- it's essentially a more skeptical version of what i've been arguing for months now, that bernie's campaign positions -- while sincerely held -- are as much about filling a lane in a primary race as anything else. i believe that if elected he would need to surround himself with capable, liberal wonks who would help him decide how best to manage the administration. klein is less optimistic, but i can at least understand and respect the argument

This Trump situation is so fucked up. American conservatism is the worst, but at least it's definable. I have no idea what a Trump presidency would even look like. I'd like to think he wouldn't create a national registry of Muslims and kill terrorists' families but who knows anymore.

yes more talk about trump

it's a pretty serious situation

i think this is a fair piece -- it's essentially a more skeptical version of what i've been arguing for months now, that bernie's campaign positions -- while sincerely held -- are as much about filling a lane in a primary race as anything else. i believe that if elected he would need to surround himself with capable, liberal wonks who would help him decide how best to manage the administration. klein is less optimistic, but i can at least understand and respect the argument

Problem with Klein's argument is Obama's administration staffed with capable liberal wonks who've frankly done a not so awesome job at managing anything. I'm not advocating for return to days of Jimmy Carter admin, but Klein and co. don't strike me as having best evidence that surrounding oneself with party insiders and calm rhetoric has resulted in fantastic outcomes either.

I mean, I liked the Klein piece too. I think if the political will was truly there, all of Bernie's proposals would be realistic, which is why he keeps advocating for a "political revolution" that brings more progressives into all levels of the government. But the presidency is about more than setting priorities for the Party, so it's important to look at how he would actually manage the office, and what steps he would take to implement his policies. From what I have seen, his judgment seems pretty sound though, as does his management ability. I mean, he's managed his unconventional campaign brilliantly. So I don't really share Klein's concerns... Sanders is dreaming big, so of course his platform doesn't reflect all the obstacles he will encounter. Not smart enough to independently evaluate his tax policy or healthcare proposal myself