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

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

oh wait I misread your post

welp I'm done

this is blatant attention-pandering, daring people to get outraged and share his comments with other outraged people, thereby spreading his poisonous message. I'm not doing it anymore.

i think i'm up to 40% now on his not being nominated

i'm not sure that he meant to bring it up, though - it almost seems like he just never thought through the implications of his position that abortion should be banned (imagine that!).

In an exclusive interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the GOP front-runner described himself multiple times as "pro-life" but struggled to define what the legal ramifications of that position should be. When continually pressed for what the answer is regarding punishing women who would break any theoretical ban, Trump said the "answer is that there has to be some form of punishment, yeah."

When asked what kind of punishment he had in mind, Trump lacked specifics and said he has "not determined what the punishment would be." Trump noted that he does "take positions on everything else but this is a very complicated position."

"If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under the law," Matthews stated, making the pivot from the moral position of being pro-life to the practical implications of implementing that position in the law.

Wow.

Just when you think he can't say something even more insane, he says something even more insane.

his numbers are starting to slip both in the polls and the betting markets. he still might be the 'most likely' candidate but the odds of a brokered convention aren't so long shot anymore and he's in a double digit deficit in the latest Wisconsin poll.

no way he's losing NYC, but chances of Cruz stealing CA are fairly high, Maryland is def winnable by Cruz, and PA is only Trump-led because Kasich is getting an absurd amount of votes. Given that he can't get a majority prior to convention time, if he were to tell his voters to vote for Cruz similar to the whole Ohio campaign he benefitted from, that could flip PA.

I don't see how Trump is gonna get the majority of delegates needed by convention time. Perhaps his numbers aren't hurting like they should be (or anywhere near), but he's definitely sinking and the states coming up aren't going to be easy for him. I really think this is going to be a contested convention, even if he does win on first or second ballot.

part of me does worry about the latter only because of the long shot Paul Ryan drafted at convention theories, because he could fare way better than his partners in a GE

but would Cruz say anything different? xxp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/03/30/Limbo_Champ_Reaches_New_Low_By_Limboing_Under_SUV_(VIDEO).html

i'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but his pattern of consistently upping the ante helps him in some ways because it makes people forget about all the other stupid stuff he believes in. it's difficult to try to remember his most recent 10 terrible things he's done, and that's just the tip of the iceberg for him.

xxpost Cruz is much more horrible on a policy side but almost equally unelectable, and moreso, doesn't carry the gross goon tactics that Trump's campaign does.

if he had a chance at winning, I might rethink my wishes

meanwhile...

Matt Karp
‏@karpmj
A little bit of data for Michael Tomasky and others who say Bernie Sanders voters are in a "privileged" position

https://twitter.com/karpmj/status/714800486617055232

also, when he raises the bar for terribleness, it helps to mask other things he says that previously would have caused headlines around the world. for example, in the town hall last night, anderson asked him if he trusted Muslims. he answered "...most of them." a few months ago that would have been big news, now it wasn't even mentioned, at least nowhere that i saw.

Paul Ryan would not won a general election. There aren't 100 million Joe Scarboroughs in the country.

Xxxpost

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-bernie-inspired-candidate-for-senate-in-pennsylvania/

love the juxtaposition of this guy's look and his political beliefs

i love him. i'm probably hosting a debate party for him next tuesday (which i've never done before but i don't know what else to do and i'm hoping they'll give me a street sign to put up)

his campaign ad is worth watching imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85rJR99FJc

I just have to wonder, where's the tipping point where Trump starts to seriously lose supporters? I feel like he could say "I think parents should murder all of their children" and a lot of people would still be onboard.

He could probably say anything he wants as long as it doesn't sound wimpy.