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

i'm kinda just making shit up but if clinton wins and the GOP really does kind of explode, the sanders/warren wing of the party would be more influential, with the republican party fractured between movement conservatives and all the people who were willing to vote for the guy who isn't sure if wants to denounce the KKK or not. so maybe it finally allows room for people like gabbard to side with liberals rather than whatever clinton's crew is

Why is it obvious that Sanders is no longer in the running because he lost badly in one state where no one expected him to win and which has voted Republican since 1980? Is it that people think this reflects a broader problem with appealing to African-American voters?

maybe someone [misguidedly?] convinced her that her endorsement could help turn the sanders campaign around

xp i think most ppl who thought sanders could (or would) win were thinking that he was behind bc enough ppl didn't know him (including in african amrican communities) and that as the campaign went on he'd close the gap. first he lost nevada where you'd hope he could win if that theory were true, and then loses worse in SC than even the polls said which suggests he's not closing the gap, and certainly not in demographics where he needs to be

Cruz has been on two shows this morning throwing out the possibility that Trump's tax returns will reveal business dealings with the Mafia. (Used the word twice, along with "mob.") Even mentioned a specific name, Fat Tony or something. Trump may be in their pocket, like so many nickels and dimes.

― clemenza, Sunday, February 28, 2016 10:16 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This looks from one angle like a Hail Mary but is srsly legit and I'm surprised they haven't wheeled it out sooner. That first Trump Tower in A.C. made entirely from concrete (!) for starters, you donb't have to be Elliot Ness.

xpost

it also doesn't bode well for him in the run-up to Tuesday, which looks like it will deliver a big list of significant wins for Clinton

Why is it obvious that Sanders is no longer in the running because he lost badly in one state where no one expected him to win and which has voted Republican since 1980? Is it that people think this reflects a broader problem with appealing to African-American voters?

― Hi! I'm twice-coloured! (Sund4r), Sunday, February 28, 2016 11:11 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the latter. im gonna wait to see exits after super tuesday before i declare the campaign dead, but he is wounded by those south carolina numbers.

yeah, his campaign was never going to win w lopsided victories in northeast states (and even in iowa he only tied). i guess the question is whether he can win in like PA, OH and FL states. hillary is projected to win FL + OH acc to 538. PA we don't vote until much later in the cycle. 538 has hillary at 79% in MA and to me it's hard to imagine sanders could even continue his campaign if he loses there. xp

maybe someone [misguidedly?] convinced her that her endorsement could help turn the sanders campaign around

― Mordy, Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:12 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Because Wasserman-Schultz Inc. says so. Meanwhile:

Trump vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Spread
RCP Average 2/2 - 2/17 -- -- 45.3 42.5 Clinton +2.8
FOX News 2/15 - 2/17 1031 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 1000 LV 3.0 43 45 Trump +2
Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 1342 RV 2.7 44 43 Clinton +1
PPP (D) 2/2 - 2/3 1236 RV 2.8 47 40 Clinton +7

Trump vs. Sanders:

Poll Date Sample MoE Sanders (D) Trump (R) Spread
RCP Average 2/2 - 2/17 -- -- 47.5 41.5 Sanders +6.0
FOX News 2/15 - 2/17 1031 RV 3.0 53 38 Sanders +15
Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 1342 RV 2.7 48 42 Sanders +6
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 1000 LV 3.0 43 44 Trump +1
PPP (D) 2/2 - 2/3 1236 RV 2.8 46 42 Sanders +4

Cruz vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Cruz (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 2/2 - 2/17 -- -- 45.3 44.5 Cruz +0.8
FOX News 2/15 - 2/17 1031 RV 3.0 46 45 Cruz +1
Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 1342 RV 2.7 46 43 Cruz +3
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 1000 LV 3.0 45 44 Cruz +1
PPP (D) 2/2 - 2/3 1236 RV 2.8 44 46 Clinton +2

Cruz vs. Sanders

Poll Date Sample MoE Sanders (D) Cruz (R) Spread
RCP Average 2/2 - 2/15 -- -- 45.7 41.0 Sanders +4.7
Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 1342 RV 2.7 49 39 Sanders +10
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 1000 LV 3.0 44 42 Sanders +2
PPP (D) 2/2 - 2/3 1236 RV 2.8 44 42 Sanders +2

Rubio vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Rubio (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 2/2 - 2/17 -- -- 47.5 42.8 Rubio +4.7
FOX News 2/15 - 2/17 1031 RV 3.0 48 44 Rubio +4
Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 1342 RV 2.7 48 41 Rubio +7
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 1000 LV 3.0 48 42 Rubio +6
PPP (D) 2/2 - 2/3 1236 RV 2.8 46 44 Rubio +2

Rubio vs. Sanders

Poll Date Sample MoE Sanders (D) Rubio (R) Spread
RCP Average 2/2 - 2/15 -- -- 44.0 44.0 Tie
Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 1342 RV 2.7 47 41 Sanders +6
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 1000 LV 3.0 42 46 Rubio +4
PPP (D) 2/2 - 2/3 1236 RV 2.8 43 45 Rubio +2

woops that was actually responding to sund4r

look i'd rather bernie won too, but those numbers don't really mean anything

That's not true. They obviously mean something. Nothing to take to the bank, but certainly discredits DNC narrative re: electability

youre wrong

Bernie isn't being best by a DNC narrative about electability

Beat

Does this mean anything?

Quinnipiac, national favorable/unfavorable, Feb. 18

1 Sanders 51/36 [+]

2 Kasich 35/18 [+]

3 Rubio 39/37 [+]

4 Clinton 37/58 [-]

5 Trump 37/57 [-]

6 Cruz 36/45 [-]

7 Bloomberg 21/26 [-]

Anybody who thinks that HRC 37 number is going to somehow move a great deal after all these years is kidding themselves.

It's a serious concern.

Bernie isn't being best by a DNC narrative about electability

― Mordy, Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:26 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is just patently untrue. One big reason his favorability numbers aren't mirrored in primary polls is Democrats arguing "it's too much, too soon," "a socialist in this country could never," etc.

if everyone were you then they wld vote like you

If the DNC is beating Sanders it's bc the establishment has an organized political apparatus in place in every State in the country. True grassroots means starting from scratch and this is imo the truth of the biggest knock on him: he has had decades to build this and he has nothing but some states in his demographic backyard. It's not entirely his fault but it's not a conspiracy that it turned out not to be enough

xxp Uh not really. It's more that Clinton's unfavorable rating is not mirrored by Democrats.

I also think it speaks, understandably, to African American voting and legitimate notions re: political change: that it's a painful slog over decades if not centuries.

Meanwhile on the other side we're getting a wall next year and scrapping Dept. of Ed., EPA etc.

The good news is that the ideology animating the Bernie movement is prob the future of the party even if he was not equipped to take advantage of the groundswell.

Agreed! Anyway, I'm not claiming a conspiracy—the "unelectable" narrative is a capitalistic inevitability.

tbf the communists just dispensed with the elections entirely

The real shame is that considering the field they're running against there is a strong possibility the Left will never, ever be handed an opportunity like this again—to be forward/unapologetic about its ideals w/o great risk. I mean, even during Primary season?

tbf the communists just dispensed with the elections entirely

guess I need to add "unfettered" "unregulated" "unhinged" or whatever modifier every time to avoid this straw man? I'm referring to the electoral process as capitalistic, not big picture govt. system

I really wonder where'd we be right now if Warren had run

Or Biden

It's hard not to imagine Warren would be running away with it. The seas have parted.

Biden never had a base of support

Yeah Joe Biden was a relative obscurity in American politics but he might've gotten on the ballot in a few states

hrc, if elected, is going to be a neolib bomber / Goldman enabler just like O, maaaaybe worse. And you can't stop her, bcz as Senator Bulworth asked, "YA GONNA VOTE REPUBLICAN?"

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Sunday, February 28, 2016

do you even read?

That gets in the way of quoting Bullworth

do you think Obama's governed domestically like Bill fucking Clinton? He's a neolib who's cleaned up much of Clinton's mess. As for Hillary, she's never gonna be my candidate, but there's no way she would've given last night's speech a year ago, and that's thanks to Sanders, #BlackLivesMatter, Warren, etc.

people like biden a lot, but I don't know that anyone wants him to be president. or maybe that's just how I personally feel.

less and less about politics, from this moment on

Likeability is a big thing! I dunno like would he have helped Sanders, eating in to Hillary's establishment base like Carson and Kaisch did to Jeb!? He'd definitely be connected with the DNC "donor class" in a way that Bernie never could be... Or hell is this a weird year and being kinda nutty and authentic enough?

I am pretty sad Warren's not running in retrospect, I don't see any way she couldn't be Sanders in this race but a far more appealing candidate

I want her in the Senate.

and that's all there is to it. She listens to me.

^^^

The Biden scenarios never made any sense, as discussed in the appropriate one of these threads at the time. He's well-liked but would have no compelling reason to run except being slightly more clearly the "carry on with Obama's work" person and a little more of an everyday person's touch or whatever. There's just not enough that's different enough vs. Clinton for him to have been a compelling alternative, see also the O'Malley campaign, see also Biden's 2008 run. Sanders struck very different chords.

Biden is a bad candidate and a loathsome pol, wtf why don't you long for a reanimated Scoop Jackson

South Carolina might as well be Alabama or Mississippi in terms of its place in USA politics. The Democratic candidate for president, whoever it is, will not win any electoral votes there. Either Clinton and Sanders would lose the Solid South, regardless of the turnout of African-American voters there.

All the morning-after political chatter rn is about spinning the media narrative ahead of Super Tuesday, with the Clinton side trying to wound Sanders in the states where he will do well by deflating his support and the Sanders side trying to deflect the spin and project strength and resolve so his voters and volunteers show up in the greatest numbers.

his achievement will be moving Hillary and the party to the left

Christ, this is SO not gonna happen, are you people conscious?

Political gnomes will analyze the voting patterns of all these primaries very intensively and draw strategic conclusions about how to collect the most electoral votes in the general election. Sanders' campaign has been so unusually clear about his issues and positions that it will make analyzing his numbers much easier to connect to real issues, not just some vague personal appeal.

imo, I think he probably has exerted some pull to the left on Hillary's campaign. But such large tidal forces are only very apparent at the edges of the ocean, and if she's elected she'll govern from somewhere mid-ocean. So, I'd say Treeship and Morbs are each correct to a degree.

South Carolina is much more in play than Alabama

kind of crazy that gabbard resigned as vice chair of the DNC to jump aboard this sinking ship but good for her

― k3vin k., Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:00 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Lol

I wonder why she left this crooked political machine that openly despises and shafts its constituency at every turn... probably not for principle or anything. so crazy that someone would leave the warm embrace of the lizard cabal to stand up for something that matters -- things Liberal Worms openly muse aloud

Xp to aimless

Whether or not the dems can flip sc or not is beside the point. The Dems need to galvanize large numbers of black and latinx voters in order to win. Clinton winning 84% of black voters in sc is a signal that Sanders has done a bad job of outreach to black voters. I feel safe in extrapolating that trend across the rest of the country.

x-post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/28/why-did-this-top-dnc-official-just-endorse-bernie-sanders/

But digging deeper into Gabbard's unconventional and sometimes combative approach to politics, her alliance with Sanders starts to add up. Like the man she's endorsing for president, Gabbard is a wildcard who is willing to put her future with the Democratic Party on the line to speak out against it.

xp to Mordy: Any election in which SC votes for the democratic presidential candidate would be a walkover. In 2012, Romney won the Solid South, including SC. He did lose Florida, which I don't consider part of the Solid South. Romney still lost 206 to 332 in the electoral college.

to bise: I grant black voters might not respond as strongly to Sanders, and therefore might not turn out in the same numbers, but it remains to be seen how the Sanders vote breaks out in the industrial north, where he must win. Chicago is not Charleston and could break differently. Second, it is a long way to November and Sanders would not be facing Clinton in the general, so the dynamic would be different. Dismissing his chances against a Trump or Rubio based on this one primary is a bit premature.

Then again, his chances for the nomination never were that high.