Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/embed/2016/elections/primary-pres-results-map/v/1457208641448/files/cruz.gif https://interactive.guim.co.uk/embed/2016/elections/primary-pres-results-map/v/1457208641448/files/sanders.gif

back in things that actually happened, Sanders wins Kansas and Nebraska, Clinton Louisiana

Still <200 pledged delegates separating them

good morning! Has the civil war started?

Morbz stuck me w his bayonet, leaned in and whispered "tell Mondale I'll see him in hell"

https://vladimirdavidiuk.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ronald-reagan-laughing-and-pointing1.jpg

I start drinking again next Saturday btw

that louis ck thing was stupid trash imo, of course my FB feed is already filled with "Louis CK Sends Out Epic Email Annihilating Donald Trump"

Michael Tracey
‏@mtracey
Trump carries Clay Co., KY -- the most economically immiserated county in America -- by 35%

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/706276419484164096

Hilarious that cruz is emerging as the establishment alternate to Trump. Ideal outcome really.

rally around the most conservative candidate since Goldwater. good night, and good luck.

FB friend's post:

How to correctly interpret the Nebraska and Kansas Democratic primaries:

Senator Sanders won these states decisively because they were tailor made for him which means that these two states as everyone has always known are filled with very liberal, very affluent, very white, very young, very blue-collar, very rural, very caucus-y kinds of voters who usually don't turn out to vote but did this time for a democratic socialist because they are for all these reasons unrepresentative of the American people and in fact all five journalists and the hot dog vendor who attended Senator Sanders's press conference announcing his candidacy last May confidently predicted that he would win Kansas and Nebraska for all these reasons plus they are caucus states which everyone also knew from the beginning would go for the Senator because it has been predicted so often in his long career as a Democratic socialist that he would be very competitive in Red states that had caucuses which require in-state organization and familiarity and even though Senator Sanders may have never once set foot in either state in his long career until a month ago this is exactly why those voters who did vote for him are unrepresentative of the American people plus if you look at a map it is clear that Kansas and Nebraska are separated from Vermont by only 7 state boundaries which gave Senator Sanders a built-in advantage over his opponent since it has also always been known from the beginning of this campaign that the very liberal, very affluent, very white, very young, very blue-collar, very rural, very caucus-y very unrepresentative sort of voters in Kansas and Nebraska (plus Oklahoma) have always known everything about Senator Sanders and surveys have always shown that they could name him as one of the Senators from Vermont even when they could not name both Senators from their own states or the states on either side of their States which again makes them entirely unrepresentative of American voters and so the results from these states were entirely predictable especially since it snows a lot in both of these states just like Vermont

..and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

lol

and here's why xp

it's a good thing you don't need to win the most delegates to become the nominee, just outperform ppl's expectations of you

Lol alfred

well at least you won't be the nominee xp

you guys WILL deserve what you get, richly

oops sorry i forgot you are all your own anointed pundit. carry on obnoxiously.

http://www.photographer-in-seattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Seattle-Election-Party-3.jpg

robbie ca$hflo (upper mississippi sh@kedown)
Posted: March 6, 2016 at 7:48:57 AM
Morbz stuck me w his bayonet, leaned in and whispered "tell Mondale I'll see him in hell"

IRL cackled at this necessitating lengthy explanation to wife

We are strictly in the 'delusional' phase of the Sanders' campaign. I get why they have to pretend to still have a shot; need as many delegates as possible to show how large the desire for other policies are. I get it, and it's good in the long run. And Sanders really needs more recognition for how positive his campaign has been, even though many of his supporters are insufferable on social media. But Clinton is winning most votes and most delegates, and she did so again yesterday. And at times it becomes a bit cringeworthy. There was one guy reporting home to Denmark from NY State about how Sanders actually won Super Tuesday, because Clinton was only carrying 'conservative' voters in the south. Uhm...

also hrc could die

I don't think Sanders campaign is over and I've said before that I think he should continue it until he is mathematically eliminated. The thing that annoys me is that at this point he actually needs to be gaining on Hillary to even have a shot but I've been seeing celebrations that he didn't lose by as many delegates yesterday as they thought a week ago, or someone saying that he doesn't need to actually win Michigan, he just needs to not lose by the current polling. I don't think that's true - he really needs to start beating Hillary and not just coming really close to doing so. I guess if you think he's going to score blow outs in rust belt states but then he actually has to be winning in MI, and then in IL, OH on the 15th which is surely the last stand?

lol remember when HRC's reason to continue campaigning about BHO was that he could still be assassinated?

This is an area where I really don't enough about US, but I could see him doing good by keeping it going all the way to the convention, right? As people have noted on ilx before, the Dems are actually having a civilized discussion about politics, which is a pretty good contrast to what's going on on the other side. At some point the party needs to prepare the infrastructure for the general, and it would be could to have as much a lead as possible on that, but they could still do that even with Sanders campaigning for another win in Connecticut or wherever.

I wrote on facebook after Iowa that Sanders lost his shot then. He needed to change the narrative definitively to ever have a chance of gaining enough momentum to turn South Carolina, and when that didn't happen, he couldn't win. The blowout in New Hampshire didn't really change that.

Yeah, I don't think it's going to be an issue (re preparing for the general) esp in the current political environment. If there's any chance that a longer Sanders campaign will keep his voters involved and committed it might actually aid the party in GOTV efforts. From what I understand the campaign is registering new voters and bringing more ppl into the party so that can only be an advantage no matter who ultimately wins the nomination.

it's not "cringeworthy" for him to stay in, and it doesn't prevent (and likely helps) the preparation of infrastructure

meet the press - chuck todd asks lindsey graham what exactly has ted cruz accomplished in the senate besides shutting down the government? and graham says, well he made people believe that it was me and mitch mcconnell who prevented repealing obamacare. but at least he's a conservative

it is hilarious how much they clearly despise cruz and know he can't win the general and still he's not as bad as trump

man the shift after early votes in the Louisiana race:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/louisiana-kansas-kentucky-maine-primaries-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-20481320

I'm with Morbs's Facebook friend tbh, but only because (once again) I've never seen this as a campaign about winning the nomination but one about proving that campaigning on these ideas has way, way more of a shot than anyone would have expected. Nobody whatsoever last summer seriously thought left-wing ranting socialist Bernie Sanders was going to win much of anything, certainly not plains states, certainly not (so far) more states that any non-winning Democratic challenger (save Clinton '08) since 1992. So yeah, i think beating that "expectation" is very interesting, and certainly much more significant in the long term than the constantly-shifting short-term expectations one is expected to beat in an actual winning primary campaign. Clinton may win the nomination and the presidency and historians may still come to mark 2016 as the beginning of the end of the long Clinton era. Who knows?

Of course, I am disappointed with the campaign in other regards; as I said a long while back, his inability to reach minority voters in large numbers is a serious failure if the goal is to establish a meaningfully new and powerful progressive coalition that wins in America. He has not seemed to find that space or that voice, and that's a drag. I objected to people pre-emptively writing him off on this count many months ago because it hadn't played out yet. Now that we have more of a sense of it, it does seem clear that while he gained some ground with African-Americans, it has not been nearly enough to indicate that real listening and synthesis had taken place in his thinking or his approach to the problems of voters. (I am open, though, to the reading that many more voters did come around to thinking he was pretty good, but that they liked Clinton better or felt she represented more of a sure thing.)

It's not a matter of needing a younger or more charismatic Bernie - - - indeed, it seems likely that his age and the way he carries himself have all played a huge part in the success he has enjoyed. Rather, I want to see a progressive that can speak simultaneously and with equal passion about all forms of injustice and continue to strike such massive chords. The test in that case might not be whether this phantom candidate draws in minorities, but whether they alienate the white union types that are as much Sanders's base as enthusiastic students are. Put another way: can you run for president and speak the truth that police murdering minorities in the streets is one of the most serious issues facing our country, and that it's only the most violent and visible edge of massive unresolved institutionalized racism? I don't know if Sanders believes this and doesn't say it, or if his old-school economic leftism really is so ingrained that he sincerely hopes that those other things will work themselves out, or at least be a lot less bad, in a less brutally oligarchic and income-segregated America. But it would be great for the "progressive alternative" to start saying this stuff and damn the consequences.

That said, I do think his longform ads (Erica Garner, now Udelia Chautla) are remarkable gestures and a wonderful thing to do with all those campaign donations. And I've come away a bit from my original point, which is that Americans in droves are voting for a socialist this year, and that is kind of nuts!

slate says: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/05/ted_cruz_s_wins_in_maine_and_kansas_are_great_news_for_donald_trump.html bc cruz is just so gross the the GOP's heart won't be in stopping Trump if Cruz is their savior.

i'm not with morb'z fb friend bc all those points are presented in a tone of frantic, nervous dismissal as if bc no one expected a strong bernie campaign when it began as we saw yesterday that means that everyone is panicked and these are just stupid excuses for his winning made up to reassure the speaker. which would imply that actually there were strong reasons to believe that he was going to continue to gain and soon take the primary. in this year's election i'm not willing to rule out anything happening but the explanations for his winning in OK and NE (primarily the favorably demographic argument) is consistent with other places he has won - and his big loss in louisiana is consistent with the the other places he has lost. so it's not a win - as strong as it was - that has pundits shocked and trying to understand what is going on. there is delusional panic but it's mostly in the bernie4prez subreddit. also i don't think the media isn't downplaying bernie bc they're trying to protect hillary. i think bernie is suffering from the fact that he's a strong dark horse in a year with the donald. (and i think he'd be doing much better in a year without trump when voters could take the time to get to know him).

also i think the dem party base is just more moderate than the left-wing wishes and that's why bernie isn't taking majorities. he's making a strong case that he can persuade a lot of voters and that his ideas are mainstreamable, but the party is not there yet and if there was an opportunity for them to get there this year it's not going to happen w/ the right-wing horror flick running + freaking them all out

also obama is extremely popular in the dem party (80% approval rating) so even tho it might seem to v left-wingers that he's actually a very controversial neo-liberal president it's just not true and if you're thinking the same thing about hillary you should probably consider you might not be on the same page as the rest of the party either.

I took Morbs's fb friend just to be parodying all the continuous goalpost adjustment that we see in every election but which has been particularly noticeable this time around thanks to the considerable media favoritism towards Clinton which has run through the entire race (see the NYT especially) - not sure how this would be a product of Trump's campaign. But, yeah, to the extent that it's trying to offer a narrative where no really he's about to win ---- win big!!! ---- then it's silly comment-box Bernie fandom.

The only interesting thing left, arguably, is that if Sanders can maintain his current crowdfunding stream, he could actually compete in some of the late states that usually fall automatically to the front-runner because everybody else drops out by then. I look forward to voting for him in New York on April 19... which is still somewhat ahead of the point at which Clinton is expected to hit a true majority of pledged delegates. So hopefully the race is still "going" in a sense at that point, even if it's just as obvious then as it has been all along that Sanders can't actually win it.

IIRC, a while back there was some polling and some articles that indicated a majority of Democrats liked Bernie just fine, even if they were planning to vote for Hillary... I'd love to see more stuff probing that. Because I'm sure there are many who think he's too far to the left - and absolutely many who think he's too far to the left to chance in a year when the opposing nominee is likely to be a fascist freakshow. But that's not quite the same thing as him representing a tiny leftie faction of the party. He's drawing crowds and winning votes because people think the neoliberal trickle-down economy's a scam, even if they wouldn't say "Obama is just another dangerous neoliberal" or whatever.

i think a lot of the complaining about biased media is overblown. the NYT specifically has covered the inquiries into Hillary's emails extensively and their two part Libya piece generated from ppl i know some of the most critical comments about her record. also generally speaking:

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/king-dem-liveblog-google-search-0301.png?w=1150

er.... that graph shows rather straightforwardly that throughout the entire campaign until voting actually started, there was a much larger gap between public interest in Sanders, and media coverage of Sanders, than the equivalent for Clinton.

it does not show a dramatic gap but more importantly it shows that the gap has closed which would demonstrate a responsive media not a biased one. if there's a case it's that the media didn't treat his candidacy seriously before the primaries started which no one can doubt. of course the media missed another really big story this election too and i don't think it was bc they were biased.

(or if they were biased, it's in similar ways - to assumptions that party approved, big money candidates are sure fire things which benefits hillary but is not a sign of a conspiracy, just of outdated political wisdom)

also yknow, quantity not the same thing as quality, and charts aren't really good at measuring the spin of articles, terms chosen, narrative-framing adjectives and verbs, quotes selected, yadda yadda. you know the deal. it'd be a project for a later historian of this campaign to reconstruct week by week, but ffs sanders just could not get coverage through most of the campaign. major thematic speeches with big press releases foreshadowing them would get buried. i definitely agree that part of this is, yes, them choosing consistently to make a trump story the headline news. but i really don't think it takes any crazy elaborate conspiracy thinking to say, yknow, the corporate centrist media kinda didn't give the socialist challenger a fair hearing before the public.

(I may also be a bit biased from having, for some reason, continued to read 538 pretty regularly through the whole process, and they, especially Harry Enten, have been among the most consistent goalpost-movers, oracles of self-fulfilling prophecies, and missers of forests for the trees. Not so surprising: the racehorse is their business and it's sort of outside their whole intellectual frame that someone could be running for some reason other than 'winning.' But yeah my exasperation may partially reflect this one particular filter.)

i feel like i've been following the sanders campaign closely and i could not tell you what major thematic speeches he gave as every time i've heard him speak it has sounded like the same thing. is this bc the media hasn't been reporting it or bc there really haven't been many? what's the last major policy idea or theme that he's released?

i hate to leave it like this but like i said that really would be a job for future historians. give me a year and a grant and i'll go back and read all the ILX threads and pick some out - i swear i remember at least a couple, like, IT'S COMING! THIS FRIDAY, SANDERS WILL GIVE A MAJOR ADDRESS ON RACIAL INJUSTICE! and then he did and it got absolutely no coverage on the news, just zero. i realize this is totally vague and anecdotal but recovering individual moments like that out of months and months of a campaign is kind of burdensome to contemplate even for someone who spends way too much time scrolling through old-favorite ILX threads.

but really if you can look at that 538 coverage chart above and not see anything even slightly unbalanced there, i'm scratching my head. i would be more convinced by a critique of the methodology itself (are google searches really the best indicator of public interest? i guess but it still feels wrong). but if you accept the method it seems pretty plain: she was getting at least twice as much coverage as sanders even when interest in him was the same as her or much higher. i think the spikes correspond to debates, which would even give a particularly newsworthy hook for a story on sanders specifically - but no, the narrative and the stories were about clinton. idk man.

it looks to me in that chart that since mid-jan stories have tracked w/ bernie interest perfectly and has even overtaken hillary in early feb. it's now early march. everyone is paying attention to the race that is going to pay attention during the primaries.

i said "throughout the entire campaign until voting actually started." so okay yes for a month and a half sanders has arguably gotten fairer coverage. not sure that cancels out him being basically shut out in the cold for half a year or more but i've sorta said my piece on this so i'll let others speak, hopefully someone can confirm that i'm not just a crazy person.

look arguably speaking bernie has had 30 years to work on getting more coverage and eyeballs on his agenda. the media didn't help him early in this race but he owns a lot of the responsibility for starting from scratch during this campaign

jeez, Doc, you've written 900 words in an hour!