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

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.

The other open federal judiciary seats are at least as crucial as SCOTUS seats, imo.

very very OTM

Any vulnerable governorships?

NC Governor Pat McCrory. Burr might also be vulnerable in the Senate race here.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/north-carolinians-want-nonpartisan-redistricting.html#more

damn, if NC gets emPurpled the same way VA did (mainly via transplants from elsewhere) that would be sweet

do republicans vote more consistently than dems bc they have an authoritarian nature v dems special snowflake iconoclasm?

sunlight foundation takes a look at cruz's superpacs

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/02/23/the-super-pacs-behind-ted-cruzs-fundraising-juggernaut/

Courageous Conservatives

Total raised: $243,250 | Total spent: $301,557 | Cash on hand: $5,156

Courageous Conservatives was formed in September 2015. Its consultant, Rick Shaftan, is a controversial figure: He was fired by Rep. Steve Lonegan, R-N.J., after going on an explicit rant saying Democratic Sen. Cory Booker’s Twitter messages to a stripper were “like what a gay guy would say.” He criticized the ads being run by Keep the Promise groups as “boring,” and Courageous Conservatives made independent expenditures against Rubio before any other Cruz group or the Cruz campaign did so (which it's now doing without abandon). Just last week, the group was discovered to be running robocall ads in South Carolina that attack Donald Trump for not supporting the confederate flag. (Also, one time the group misspelled the word “country” in an anti-Rubio ad.)

do republicans vote more consistently than dems bc they have an authoritarian nature v dems special snowflake iconoclasm?

― Mordy, Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:59 AM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they vote more consistently because they're richer and have more free time

pretty superficial analysis for obv reasons (like if only wealthy republicans voted there would be no republicans in office)

yup

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/02/13/National-Politics/Graphics/2300-hearingobama02xx.jpg

? all that shows is that people are a bad judge of percentages of anything

dem voter base is highly skewed among americans making less than $50k

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/

? all that shows is that people are a bad judge of percentages of anything

^^^

no it shows that saying "republicans are richer and have more free time" is prob not that true?

how does it show that

it shows that only 2% of republicans make over $250k/yr

this data's a little old but shows the relationship among income quintile, voting frequency and voting preference pretty clearly

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0104cervantes.html

250k is a p arbitrary number

xp

really not the best charts to try and determine the comparative wealth of republicans? like the only income group that's broken out is "over 250K a year" which isn't very helpful at all. maybe things like this get us a little closer:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XtTypb9D7ys/UFh8KZzM1sI/AAAAAAAADeo/BWE_kypsu4c/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-09-18+at+9.49.37+AM.png

the $250k breakpoint doesn't matter much, why are you stuck on that. thats 5x the median! that's not like the lowest floor where free time, greater personal autonomy and policy preference kick in

xps

okay, the data that you linked to here xp http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/ shows % making over $75k/yr, again arbitrary number but maybe a little more meaningful than $250k

rep 29%
dem 29%
ind% 38%

over $75k

rep/lean-rep - 48%
dem/lean-dem - 45%