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

Wait is that real (the transcript) am I dumb did that happen

Verbatim. Last night was a good idea of what it looks like when you press Trump with follow-ups. His big thing now is to cut you off with "Excuse me, excuse me," which translates as "Fucking shut up--I'm talking." Cooper did make some headway. There was the exchange above, and then later he laughingly pointed out that according to Trump, retweets and repeating something somebody else said don't count as agitating; Trump conceded that maybe he should stop doing these things. Even though he won't, obviously.

He's being treated very unfairly. Very unfairly. If we're not careful, he may just take his ball and go home.

Huh, didn't know that was an Arbus photo
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NhPYzF-mDyQ/Sx7SY0qn5LI/AAAAAAAAB_s/Vd_Es1Nwr9U/s400/SNFU-No+One+Else.jpg

TS: Drumpf vs Zodiac Killer thing

“I don’t know if they were bruises from that. Why? Who said they were bruises from that? How do you know those bruises weren’t there before? I don’t know what the police said. How do you know those bruises weren’t there before? I’m not a lawyer. She said she had a bruise on her arm, to me, if you’re going to get squeezed, wouldn’t you think you would’ve yelled out a scream or something, if she has bruises on her arm? Take a look at her facial expression. It doesn’t even change. So you say bruises on her arm, how did they get there? Who put them there? I don’t know that he put them there?”

http://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/images/2015/4/23/140207_2722843_Saturday_Night_News_Segment___Nathan_Thurm_anvver_2.jpg

the problem with those "targets" is i don't think they've updated them since the beginning of the race. so bernie actually needs to outperform those targets by quite a bit to get to a majority

― k3vin k., Monday, 28 March 2016 17:39 (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a fair point - they've redrawn them for the current situation

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

Singularity (of the day!): Wolf Blitzer one on one with political strategist Omarosa.

http://i2.listal.com/image/1033717/936full-idiocracy-screenshot.jpg

Trenchant!

Only thing I don't get in that article: references to "recent polling" in those states, when their own poll-tracking prediction widget suggests that there's almost none to go on, with some states not even getting entries. Not saying that surprise Sanders blowouts lurk everywhere, just that it seems an odd lapse for Silver.

Bernie making this even *look* like a plausible fight to the finish is a bigger victory than I'd have ever predicted for him. It's going to look more like 2008, in terms of states/delegates won, than any other race. Given that he arrived poised to do somewhere between Kucinich and Bradley, I think that bodes extremely well for the progressive left.

xpost Hmmm yeah I wasn't going for that...but happy to provide you insight?

It sure has gotten a lot more dickish here over the years.

Only thing I don't get in that article: references to "recent polling" in those states, when their own poll-tracking prediction widget suggests that there's almost none to go on, with some states not even getting entries

The states he's talking about with the larger quantities of delegates do have recent polling. The states without any polling tend to be the ones with almost no delegates. I'd be very surprised if this turned out to be anywhere near as close as 2008.

I think his campaign bodes well for the progressive left but if you came away from that article thinking that he's manipulating the numbers to make it look bad for Sanders and actually it's super close I think you may be misleading yourself thru wishful thinking.

I think his campaign bodes well for the progressive left until Clinton and Schumer "fix things."

Go read a book ya dumbass

Mordy, please point to anything I said that made you think I interpreted the article that way? I am not stupid and I think I have generally made clear in these threads that I am not under any illusions re: Bernie's chances. Please also indicate which other Dem nominating contest you think is a closer analogue to 2008. I never suggested it would be as close as a 47%/48% split, just that it is dramatically different from the typical outcome of such races. The socialist no-chance guy has won fifteen contests so far, and will probably take a couple more. Though he'll likely fall short of Clinton 08's 23, I find this newsworthy.

It's going to look more like 2008, in terms of states/delegates won, than any other race.

I guess I don't understand what this means. That race seemed extremely close at the time and iirc Hillary ended up winning the popular vote and losing pledged delegates by only like 100. By contrast Bernie is more than 200 down at the moment in pledged and it's looking like Hillary is going to increase her lead by the end of the race. This is without discussing superdelegates at all. They seem fundamentally different in levels of competitiveness to me.

I just looked through the historical primary record and I guess you're right! It does look from a casual glance that it's the closest since 2008, but I'm still not sure they're comparable. I remembered in 2008 that when the primary came to PA the result still seemed unsettled.

and this time, the anointed winner of the Three-Year Money Primary will be first

maybe

and in Debbie Wasserman-Stain endorsement news, fuck Obama

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/29/this-obama-endorsement-is-a-sign-pro-corporate-democrats-are-getting-nervous/

Wasserman-Schultz also endorses Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen in the battle for which hyphenate can be more dangerous to South Florida.

HRC has deigned to debate Bernie on her "home" state, Brooklyn to be exact, before the primary on 4/19. I guess he has met her conditions about his "tone"

I understand why he wants the debate - he's way behind in NY and needs to win to have a chance at the nomination so any kind of event that could change the polling is worth fighting for. But I'm skeptical that another debate is going to change the numbers much.

i'm guessing it won't be in Prospect Park, to keep Birdie away

The thing is, Mordy, he bailed her out with a NH debate (and she still lost, gives credence to what you are saying) and iirc also the Flint one? So this is really her holding up her end of the bargain. But you're right, probably neglible impact

I have a conservative libertarian friend who has been opining that both parties have moving towards their logical extremes for several years now; I've always discounted this as conservative nonsense but the realization that Sanders running on a platform that likely would have been political anathema 12 years ago is making this a competitive race against Hillary Clinton is making me rethink my position slightly; I still don't think that polarization on the Democratic side is as strong as polarization on the Republican side but I suspect that some of that is because I think progressive positions SHOULD be the default. (I also think Democrats are invested in the idea of a functioning government and Republicans are not, which makes the Democratic side more amenable to compromise and constrains how far to the left the mainstream Democratic position can be.)

That's roughly how I feel as well with the caveat that Republicans are very much into the idea of a functioning government as long as those functions directly enrich themselves and/or their lunch buddies

(I also think Democrats are invested in the idea of a functioning government and Republicans are not, which makes the Democratic side more amenable to compromise and constrains how far to the left the mainstream Democratic position can be.)

Yep. It also means that the party that believes in functioning government gets the blame when the bailout, Obamacare, IRS, oversight in Flint, etc go badly. Reminds me of that memo written by a GOP aide several years ago admitting that this was the GOP's long term goal.

I wonder what the political affiliation is of this lawmaker briefed by Comey? Also nice of the wapo to fact check their sources a couple days later after running the story.

"One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey," read the original report, which was published on Sunday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wapo-corrects-number-fbi-agents-clinton-email-probe

this is the "he started it" video btw
https://twitter.com/zbyronwolf/status/714986877858619393

Great pitch

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/715217490368827396

@HillaryClinton
Some folks may have the luxury to hold out for “the perfect.” But a lot of Americans are hurting right now and they can’t wait for that.

thanks obama

Obama sucks and my opponent is better than me in 140 chars

"the perfect"

HRC imitating her worst supporters -- brava and pass the fucking sock o' manure

the transferable nickname for any Dems left of the Wall St Journal

xp

lol that is just fucking pathetic

"find someone less perfect than me, i dare ya"

unbelievable

Only 224 days until the next president begins campaigning for their second term.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce0NU17W8AAUL1a?format=pjpg&name=large

I wonder if GOP strategists screen footage of Hillary as evidence for success of Overton window

I just looked through the historical primary record and I guess you're right! It does look from a casual glance that it's the closest since 2008, but I'm still not sure they're comparable. I remembered in 2008 that when the primary came to PA the result still seemed unsettled.

― Mordy, Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:09 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes; again, I don't expect it to be remotely as close as 2008. My point was not that this was the "closest since 2008" however (that would be, er, not a very wide field of comparison), but that it was historically out of the norm and a serious shift from the model of "left challenger who won't win anything because the party and Americans at large generally prefer the centrist." Let's look at the runner-ups in the Dem races since 1972 and see how Bernie stacks up historically in terms of contests won (this includes D.C., Puerto Rico, etc.). Wikipedia actually doesn't format these consistently and I've probably overlooked some or made some counting errors, but basically:

1972 - McGovern (11), Wallace (6), Humphrey (4)
1976 - Carter (30), Church (5), Scoop Jackson (4), Udall, Wallace, Brown (3 each)
1980 - Carter (37), Kennedy (12)
1984 - Mondale (19), Hart (26), Jesse Jackson (3)
1988 - Dukakis (31), Jackson (14), Gore (7), Gephardt (3), Simon (1)
1992 - Clinton (35), Tsongas (7), Brown (6), Kerrey and Harkin (1 each)
1996 - no contest
2000 - Gore (50+), Bradley (0)
2004 - Kerry (51), Edwards and Dean (2 each), Clark (1)
2008 - Obama (33), Clinton (23)
N/A 2012 - no contest
2016 - Clinton (20), Sanders (15) - so far!

Obviously, contests won isn't everything. Such a metric overstates the importance of winning, say, the US Virgin Islands, and of smaller, less populous states. Gary Hart won a majority of the contests but lost the popular vote by ~2.5%. I submit, however, that it is not a meaningless measure, particularly if we are interested in the electoral viability of ideas, issues, and postures taken by a candidate. A platform that can win a majority in a state, or a lot of them, cannot be written off as a trivial, diffuse leftie fringe. So I think it is at least Interesting that if the race were called for Clinton as of today, Sanders would have won a bigger share of contests (as a percentage of those counted) than Clinton at the end of the 2008 race, and indeed of any modern runner-up save Gary Hart. Of course, calling it now would make it a silly comparison for various reasons but this is something to which it would be interesting to return in June.

Regarding 538:

Me: Only thing I don't get in that article: references to "recent polling" in those states, when their own poll-tracking prediction widget suggests that there's almost none to go on, with some states not even getting entries. Not saying that surprise Sanders blowouts lurk everywhere, just that it seems an odd lapse for Silver.

Mordy: The states he's talking about with the larger quantities of delegates do have recent polling.

Well, let's see.

April
Wisconsin (96): two polls in March: Clinton +6, Sanders +4
Wyoming (18): no page in 538's primary forecast/poll-tracker widget
New York (291): one poll in mid-March: Clinton +48
Connecticut (70): no page
Delaware (31): no page
Maryland (118): one poll in early March, Clinton +33
Pennsylvania (210): two polls in March: Clinton +30, Clinton +25
Rhode Island (33): no page

May
Indiana (92): no page
Guam (12): no page
West Virginia (37): no page
Kentucky (61): no page
Oregon (74): no page

June
U.S. Virgin Islands (12): no page
Puerto Rico (67): no page
California (546): two polls in March: Clinton +7, Clinton +11
Montana (27): no page
New Jersey (142): no polls in March (and only one in 2016).
New Mexico (43): no page
North Dakota (23): no page
South Dakota (25): no page
D.C. (45): no page

Now, to be clear, it's not surprising that there aren't robust poll results in these places! Some of the contests are ages away, and surely pollsters were not planning or budgeting for polling all these contests since usually the race is totally sewn up by now. And my claim was not that Silver cooked the books or something, just that it seems a bit of a logical lapse for Mr. Data Guy, who has previously tweeted frustration when there seems to be a shortage of polling in interesting upcoming races, to put his chips on, "recent polls" in states like New York, where his own system counts only two polls, one from March 14-16, weighted .37, and one from Feb. 28-Mar 3 (weighted .10). Similar numbers crop up in the other upcoming big-ticket states like Maryland and PA. I think he's right about Sanders's chances, but if you're going to be a "numbers" site, use the numbers when you've got them, and acknowledge when you don't got 'em, especially if earlier in the same nomination process you've repeatedly reminded readers that primaries are notorious for big last-minute shifts in voting and that the polls therefore have comparatively low predictive value, especially when you have limited polling data and it's all basically from 1-2 polling houses.

POLITICS MAR 30 2016, 2:18 PM ET
Trump Advocates Abortion Ban, 'Some Form of Punishment' for Women

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-lewandowski-they-re-destroying-very-good-person-n548036

@alivitali: NEW Trump to @msnbc: "there has to be some form of punishment" for women who have abortions but he has yet to determine what that should be.

this is getting less funny

this guy is thriving on treating wasp's nests like piñatas
would love it if abortion is the hill he dies on

def looking to get a couple hundred Democratic votes

is there anyone that respects women more than trump does?

barbers