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

some pollsters are already doing that first part iirc?

i don't even know how they are going to do polling in another 5 years

i'm guessing analytics teams will just pay facebook/google/amazon for a subset of their user data and go from there. why bother trying to contact someone when you can just see if they liked a bernie sanders related post on facebook or googled for voter registration information

i wonder about some kinda creepy tracking your facebook, google, likes all that algorithim stuff? who knows

i saw something where they can track where your eyes actually go on a webpage and make "heat maps" of pages etc

i dunno something creepy probably

massive whoops, i didn't see you'd already posted that. so yes, i agree!

fivethirtyeight (but not silver):

Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.

Both the FiveThirtyEight polls-plus and polls-only forecast gave Clinton a greater than 99 percent chance of winning. That’s because polling averages for primaries, while inexact, are usually not 25 percentage points off. Indeed, my colleague Nate Silver went back and found that only one primary, the 1984 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, was even on the same scale as this upset. In that contest, the polling average had Walter Mondale beating Gary Hart by 17 percentage points, but it was Hart who won, with slightly more than 9 percentage points over Mondale.

i sort of get why a 'win' is emphasized for the purposes of having a media narrative but calling any of these a 'win' seems a bit hollow when they award proportionally

Ratings.

That's why I think some of the media complaints that they are in the bag for Hillary are a little hard to believe (though I don't doubt there are real examples). Their primary bias is to have an exciting race to cover which means they're more likely ime to tout an underdog challenger just to make it more interesting.

ultimately despite all the sometimes heightened bad feelings being engendered by the democratic race, unlike the GOP which seems to represent the total collapse of their house of cards, all the issues being brought to the surface in the democratic debate are ultimately healthy ones:

the fact that there's a large left wing in the party that's been ignored for too long, the debate of pragmatism and getting things done in the realities of washington vs. what constitutes a fundamental selling out of the party's values, the long-simmering disconnect between white progressives and progressives of color and other communities, etc etc etc, and though i mean it's a presidential race and it gets a ugly at times, i don't think either clinton or sanders has caustically attacked the other like the republican candidates have, and there's certainly times with both candidates have seemed to learn from events during the campaign and adjusting their messages.

where as the GOP just seems like some high school assholes playing the dozens

That's why I think some of the media complaints that they are in the bag for Hillary are a little hard to believe (though I don't doubt there are real examples). Their primary bias is to have an exciting race to cover which means they're more likely ime to tout an underdog challenger just to make it more interesting.

― Mordy, Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:18 AM

Never 4get 2012 when pundits said it was gonna be a nailbiter through Election Day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw&sns=em

Idk why no one has tried to torment Trump with a million steak puns yet. "Would you stake your reputation on that, Mr. Trump?" "Look, I know you are trying to stake your position as the anti-immigration candidate." "Oh, raising the stakes again I see?" A candidate could just go on and on and then play dumb when Trump complains about it. They coud also torment him by punning on his name a lot. Many possibilities

I agree with u.m.s., this dem primary has been good for the country all around

trump aside, just the concept of buying steaks at the sharper image is the funniest thing that has ever happened

xp yes but has it been good for ilx?

many xps - Abbasolutely agree that it's good that we're having this conversation no matter what happens.

Also otm is this from Mordy: "primary bias is to have an exciting race to cover." P much. The Story Needs To Change.

Hillinevitability was a story, which needed to change to Unexpected Surge of Populist Challenger. Which needed to change to WTF? A Socialist Has No Chance, which needed to change to OMG Can He Really Have a Chance? Which needed to change to Clinton Fights Sanders Insurgency, which needed to change to Sanders Closing The Gap, which needed to change to Clinton Roaring Back, which needed to change to ZOMG Sanders Scores Major Upset, which will change to But She Still Leads in Delegates, which will change again and again until there's no story anymore and we'll be off chasing another set of squirrels.

Of course Everything's Different Now(tm). But I recognize this rhythm, and I went to journalism school 20 years ago.

http://stargayzing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/l-6llaeq8321uo1z.jpg

Curious as to how Clinton reacts to last night. She doesn't need to be rattled, but she may be--and if she's rattled she may overreact and start attacking hard, and if that happens, that could backfire. She tended to run the 2008 campaign minute to minute, Annie Oakley and all that; assume she'll be more disciplined this time.

I don't think she should panic. She has the delegate lead and she earned more delegates last night. It might be troubling for her that rust belt states are trending Bernie (though last night was a near tie in MI since it's representational delegates) but big states like PA or FL are closed primaries which should help her. March 15th might be rough for her-- I assume she'll win missouri and north carolina, and if she can keep it close in (or win some of) OH, IL and FL she'll be in good position.

The Bernie case is a little harder to make since (I know I'm a broken record) at this points he needs more than momentum to overtake the earned delegate lead - the argument in his favor is that he is trending up so it's not impossible to believe that he captures such a groundswell that he starts blowing her out in some of his more favorable states.

Washington Post: 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders in 16 hours

we did that one Monday, i think

I do think it's important that Trump has yet to get a majority of support in any of his states. He's been pretty consistent in that regard.

xp whoops, thread moves fast, sorry

Indeed, the Sanders campaign has focused on courting the Arab population in Dearborn, especially in the last week. He met with Arab-American leaders in the city, released an Arab-language radio ad in the Dearborn market, and reiterated at a Dearborn campaign rally that “we’re going to end bigotry in this country once and for all.” It’s hardly a new theme in Sanders’ campaign — he has spoken out against anti-Muslim rhetoric for months, likening such prejudice to the conditions his Jewish parents faced preceding the Holocaust.

“Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, have long been targets of discriminatory anti-terrorism policies, and Sanders’ campaign has responded to these concerns better than anyone else. He even promoted his campaign platform of equality and dignity in Arabic,” said (Hend) Amry(, a Libyan-American writer). “We are also seeing, perhaps, a response to the Sanders’ campaign’s attack of corporate America. Michigan’s blue-collar Arab Americans are suffering economic challenges too, not just white blue-collar Americans.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-wins-big-michigan-muslims-political-pundits-cant-quite-believe-it-2333030

re: "Trump has yet to get a majority of support in any of his states." - Hence the hunger for a two-person race. All not-Trump voters have to agree to focus on one specific person (in this case, gah, apparently Cruz) or give up and stay home.

As has been noticed elsewhere, it's likely to be win-win for Democrats. The hideous Trump, the odious Cruz, or some as-yet-unknown clusterfuckular third option. The GOP will have proved either be too weak to stop the Trump train (which makes them look weak and stupid) or nefarious enough to steal the nomination from him (which makes them look evil and antidemocratic).

I know prediction is a fool's errand these days, but I can't ignore the glimmer of hope that Republicans will simultaneously lose the presidency, Senate, and Supreme Court all at once. The schismatic chaos and paroxysms of gnashing teeth and flurry of long-ass think pieces would just be the cherry on top of a magnificent sundae of woe.

and then the Democratic wing of the Democratic party can turn its attention to Clinton-Schumer leadership?

They would (will) at least be aware that they're a wing.

I thought we were an aisle?

I know prediction is a fool's errand these days, but I can't ignore the glimmer of hope that Republicans will simultaneously lose the presidency, Senate, and Supreme Court all at once. The schismatic chaos and paroxysms of gnashing teeth and flurry of long-ass think pieces would just be the cherry on top of a magnificent sundae of woe.

― brotato chip (Ye Mad Puffin), Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:28 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Things would certainly improve, but I can't get over the feeling that the Dems would ultimately fumble that ball.

Let's face it: neither party really knows what it's doing or has much in the way of internal consistency. It's just that the GOP is so much worse, oh my god.

Jon Schwarz ‏@tinyrevolution
1996 GOP platform denounced use of terrorism to justify restriction of civil rights. Oh well http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25848

"We denounce terrorist attacks made on American citizens at home or abroad. We must take all legitimate steps to swiftly apprehend and severely punish persons committing terrorists acts. However, we must also denounce any attempts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights while fighting terrorism. To take away the liberty of the American people while fighting terrorism is repugnant to the history and character of our nation. We firmly oppose any legislation that would infringe upon the rights of American citizens to freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; and the right to judicial due process."

How credible is the idea that Sanders getting very close to beating Clinton in the primary and it having zero effect on the way she acts as president being a recipe for causing a similar implosion in the Democratic Party? The relief of not having Trump as president being quickly be replaced by anger at Clinton doing nothing for the Sanders constituency of the Democratic Party that helped get her elected? I mean yeah blame it on obstruction from Congress but the success of Sanders in the primary might cause a bloc of the Democratic Party that was previously kind of diffuse to gain a sense of identity that is centered around betrayal of the working class by Clinton?

it would depend how motivated and angry the "Sanders wing" would be, instead of just booting their friends down their stairs when they ask "Would you rather have Trump?"

icymi: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/05/stop_laughing_democrats_as_the_gop_goes_down_in_flames_your_post_bernie_civil_war_is_almost_here/

I did miss that! Thanks.

i haven't read the salon piece in full, but this lines up with what i was going to say: "For the insurgents of the Sanders wing, the question now becomes how many of them are willing to turn to the more difficult and less exciting work of rebuilding democracy from the ground up"

unless Sanders/Warren supporters turn out en masse for the 2018 midterms and help to build progressive momentum around liberal candidates, they can't really throw a tizzy about HRC ignoring them while she's president

This is what frustrates me about the notion that Sanders supporters should take solace in what could amounts to a successful protest candidacy driving issues on the left. You'd have to be an idiot or at best an amnesiac to think HRC is actually going to adopt or even sublimate his core positions.

"could amounts," now who's the idiot

I wonder what the response would be if Sanders somehow manages to eke out more regular delegates than Clinton, but she wins the nomination with superdelegates. It could cause a lot of contentiousness and maybe hobble her candidacy in the general?

It would be kinda nice if the american people (on both sides of the aisle) finally wake up after being dicked over and lied to for 30 years but I dont expect much

If Sanders won more regular delegates but the super delegates flipped it for Clinton it would be catastrophic for everyone involved xp

It would be kinda nice if the american people (on both sides of the aisle) finally wake up after being dicked over and lied to for 30 years but I dont expect much

― carthago delenda est (mayor jingleberries)

that's why many Republicans are voting for Trump.

Basically you get President Trump in that scenario, also falls into the "so not going to happen" category.

This is what frustrates me about the notion that Sanders supporters should take solace in what could amounts to a successful protest candidacy driving issues on the left. You'd have to be an idiot or at best an amnesiac to think HRC is actually going to adopt or even sublimate his core positions.

speaking seriously + specifically - she is not going to oppose free trade agreements and she isn't going to being an isolationist. that said - she has plenty of things she's campaigning on that she is likely to try and implement in office that will make a material difference in ppl's lives. so the question really becomes what constitutes "core positions."

going to become* an isolationist. i really need to get back into the habit of reviewing posts before i hit submit.

Richard M. Nixon ‏@dick_nixon

I'm still here.

Manu Raju @mkraju
"Every single person who has attacked me has gone down," Trump boasts

actually Richard Nixon died in 1994

just a rumor

Faked it.

bernie is not in any sense an "isolationist"

I agree