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

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

i feel bad but i can't even be bothered imagining what a bernie presidency would be like, seems so futile and i can't muster the energy to do it

stopped reading at smell test

if the House and Senate stay R, Hilary's presidency will be just as futile

i think senate is gonna flip

Dems will take the Senate. Not that that will change much.

With the White House and the Senate, Dems will completely change the composition of the Court. That strikes me as a change worthy of note.

if it gets another SCOTUS pick, it will change a lot. i'm a little pessimistic about them taking senate but we will see

eh my guess would be that if the Dems take the WH and Senate in '16, Ginsberg will retire - but that won't change the court's composition much, not like Scalia's replacement will.

It's been rumored Kennedy wants to resign

I posted this in the SCOTUS thread:

New Public Policy Polling surveys of Pennsylvania and Ohio find that both Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are suffering from very weak approval numbers as they seek reelection to the Senate. Furthermore voters in their states, by wide margins, want the vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled this year. Their opposition to even considering a replacement for Antonin Scalia has the strong potential to put them in even worse standing with voters than they are already.

Key findings from the survey include:

-Only 29% of voters approve of the job Toomey is doing to 40% who disapprove, and just 30% approve of the job Portman is doing to 39% who disapprove. They’re both very much in the danger zone for reelection based on those low approval numbers. One thing complicating their path to reelection is how bad the overall brand of Senate Republicans is. Mitch McConnell has a 13/56 approval rating in Pennsylvania, and a 14/57 one in Ohio. His extreme unpopularity is going to be a weight on his party’s incumbents running across the country.

-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

-Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward. By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person. Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one- Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them.

this SCOTUS fight is the Dems to lose. They gotta demagogue like mad.

To add to his many lovely traits, Cruz is both dominionist _and_ a goldbug.

this SCOTUS fight is the Dems to lose. They gotta demagogue like mad.

agreed - they hold the cards here

So Toomey and Portman may be hosed because they won't consider an Obama nominee (possibly to avoid challenges from their right).

Meanwhile Kirk may be hosed because he _will_ (which will likely inspire a challenge from his right).

That'll be fun to watch

While I don't entirely understand how the recent challenges to gerrymandering operate, it seems like a left-leaning Supreme Court is necessary to force State legislators to draw up more appropriate districting. Bc it doesn't look like the Dems are going to get control of legislative bodies through elections.

well they could eventually - populations/demographics shift over time (which is the ostensible reason for why districts get redrawn all the time)

Reps need to lose control of Congress like yesterday, not in the however many decades it'll take for their districts to naturally turn over demographically.

of course. requiring the replacement of the overtly partisan exercise that is currently gerrymandering with something ostensibly non-partisan would be a good start

eh my guess would be that if the Dems take the WH and Senate in '16, Ginsberg will retire - but that won't change the court's composition much, not like Scalia's replacement will.

Yeah I'm operating under the assumption that Scalia's replacement won't be confirmed until after the election. The rabid Teahadis have made it clear that they're sharpening the long knives for any GOPer who would even let an Obama-nominee out of committee. Indeed, p sure even having hearings will be regarded as RINO squish apostasy worthy of an insurgent primary challenge.

Methinx Senate Republicans are more scared the rabid right than of a groundswell of normal people asking them to be decent chaps and just give Obama's choice a chance.

The other open federal judiciary seats are at least as crucial as SCOTUS seats, imo. Retaking the Senate and getting 12 to 16 straight years of Dem POTUS would be a yuuuuuge bulwark against the 30% of Americans who are fucking insane, just for that.