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

The NY Mag article caek quoted above (about Trump's exhaustion) is pretty good, if you need a look under the hood.

It was also thanks to some information he had gathered that Trump was able to do something that no other Republican has done before: take on Fox News. An odd bit of coincidence had given him a card to play against Fox founder Roger Ailes. In 2014, I published a biography of Ailes, which upset the famously paranoid executive. Several months before it landed in stores, Ailes fired his longtime PR adviser Brian Lewis, accusing him of being a source. During Lewis’s severance negotiations, Lewis hired Judd Burstein, a powerhouse litigator, and claimed he had “bombs” that would destroy Ailes and Fox News. That’s when Trump got involved.

“When Roger was having problems, he didn’t call 97 people, he called me,” Trump said. Burstein, it turned out, had worked for Trump briefly in the ’90s, and Ailes asked Trump to mediate. Trump ran the negotiations out of his office at Trump Tower. “Roger had lawyers, very expensive lawyers, and they couldn’t do anything. I solved the problem.” Fox paid Lewis millions to go away quietly, and Trump, I’m told, learned everything Lewis had planned to leak. If Ailes ever truly went to war against Trump, Trump would have the arsenal to launch a retaliatory strike.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/inside-the-donald-trump-presidential-campaign.html#

Bernie staying in past this point, I just don't know what to attribute it to. He's already earned himself a seat at the table for the convention, and he's pushed Hillary's rhetoric to the left and (at least on the Dem side) brought his signature issues into the mainstream of the party. But there's no way he's going to get the nomination now, staying in at this point seems like an exercise in willful contrarianism, egomania, etc. And at this point when it looks like Dem congressional chances are better than previously thought possible, it's weird/sad to see all this money and energy from his supporters being channeled into a pointless charade rather than something actually productive.

(just started Barney Frank's "A Life in Politics", maybe some of his cantankerous pragmatism is rubbing off on me today)

xp

That's... A pretty bad excuse... I don't think he's talking about Ethiopia or whereever.
Well, what "other countries" was he talking about?

― Hi! I'm twice-coloured! (Sund4r), 4. april 2016 23:37 (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, it's probably not a third-world country, since that would indirectly indict the second world for falling way far behind. And it's obviously not a second-world country. So go figure.

Hm, many Communist countries were Third World countries previously. I had interpreted the comment as saying that, under socialism, there was at least this basic improvement. (Indian Communists made arguments like this all the time.) If he was comparing Communist countries favourably to wealthy First World countries, then I agree that it's pretty ridiculous.

But there's no way he's going to get the nomination now, staying in at this point seems like an exercise in willful contrarianism, egomania, etc.

You're right - it's important for the party to know how many people in New Hampshire and Washington support a more progressive approach to the party, but totally unimportant to suss this out for New York and California. Really, Bernie had made his point after he cracked 20% in national polling - everything since then has been a total waste of everybody's time. And if you really think about it, running at all in the first place was willfully contrarian and egomaniacal, since Hillary was always going to win. For shame.

i really don't think it's a question of egomania

idgi Doc, you think Bernie's running a demographics study?

And if he was, then what to make of his campaign admitting they gave up on the south, to get more 'wins' on super tuesday?

i really don't think it's a question of egomania

I was hesitant to make this accusation, but Bernie really seems to enjoy his newfound cult of personality - much moreso than he, say, wants to support other candidates or build networks of like-minded candidates or actually get legislation passed. I tend to judge these kinds of misalignments of priorities in public figures p harshly.

we've already discussed this a bunch but it bears repeating that it's odd for a candidate to call for a revolution and then not actually show any interest in the organizing required to accomplish that revolution

I have more respect for Dean, who successfully pivoted from his failed primary bid and capitalized on his support within the party to reshape the party's strategy and actually win elections - which had a direct impact on getting Obama his Dem majority, and resulted in decent legislation.

idgi Doc, you think Bernie's running a demographics study?

I think, as I've said many many times, that his campaign is about proving a point: that there is an audience for progressivism and a platform based fundamentally on the issues of income inequality, political reform, and all the rest of it. "Moving Hillary to the left" is not the project and never has been since we all know how that'll end; the value of it is in revealing the base's progressive leanings to those who might run for other races, not to mention ginning up a lot of enthusiasm among people as the Bernie tour visits your state, gets you pumped, gives you the experience of voting for a socialist as something not totally alien, something you've now done and might do again. (Now I'm really really repeating myself, but: I think this matters! Especially for first-time voters! Wouldn't the range of political possibilities look different to you, maybe for the rest of your life, if your first choice is between center-right Democrat and 'democratic socialist,' with both actually doing pretty darn good in the race?)

Him bailing on the race because it's profoundly unlikely (to the point of impossibility) that he'll actually win is silly: that was true from the moment he started! Him winning has only gotten more likely (as in, going from a .001 chance to a .005 or something), but anyway if he quits, that means tons and tons of people don't get to pull the lever for the candidate they support and don't get to go through with this whole thing. I wonder what's really at stake in urging him out of the race. Why's it so important to deny him those votes and those delegates, or the full referendum on his ideas? I want the history books to get it right and I want him to compete right to the end.

Yeah, good point - I, too, am really disappointed that Future Bernie Sanders has not done any of that organizing stuff. I mean it's already mid 2019 where he is. Pretty disappointing that he's just been sitting on his hands since losing the nomination - I thought he was made of better stuff than that.

It's just, like - - - I see so many of these "advice to Bernie Sanders: if you really want to succeed, what you should do is quit! Trust me, I know about success - I've been supporting Clinton since day one!" kinda pieces and opinions floating around and it's such weak concern-trolling.

i seem to remember shakey having some pretty harsh words for the blue dogs the dean/rahm DNCC whipped up during those first couple of obama years -- the ones who got wiped out in the midterms and gave the GOP their huge majorities, btw

the base's progressive leanings to those who might run for other races

this is an admirable goal, but it's only the smallest of first steps in actually getting those people into office. Once the demand is there, then you have to identify which races are in play, find candidates to run in those races, give them money and party backing to fight what is likely to be hard-fought campaign (in the case of primary challenges, or swing seats), then you have to make sure those voters who were excited by Bernie know about this other person and actually show up to vote when Bernie is *not* on the ballot. That is all a shitload of work that requires coordination and exploitation of the party apparatus and Bernie has p clearly demonstrated by this point that he is *not* interested in doing it. He hasn't supported downballot candidates who claim his mantle, his campaign isn't coordinating with them, it isn't helping them raise money, etc. And at this point we have less than 7 months to go! Or do you think Berniemania is going to somehow sustain itself into the 2018 midterms cuz if so I have some unpleasant news for you...

xp

Can't wait for Οὖτι to blame Sanders for Clinton's centrist policies in a year. He'll have gotten a lot of practice by then.

i seem to remember shakey having some pretty harsh words for the blue dogs the dean/rahm DNCC whipped up during those first couple of obama years

true, and a lot of those individual members sucked and what I didn't like about them was when they didn't toe the party line. otoh (most of them) helped get ARRA and Obamacare passed.

Can't wait for Οὖτι to blame Sanders for Clinton's centrist policies in a year. He'll have gotten a lot of practice by then.

Unless Clinton gets a majority in congress it's barely going to matter what any of her policies are

that there is an audience for progressivism and a platform based fundamentally on the issues of income inequality, political reform, and all the rest of it

also hasn't this goal already been accomplished? it sure seems like it to me. what's the point of staying in all the way up to the convention, just burning up all that donor money?

Can't wait for Οὖτι to blame Sanders for Clinton's centrist policies in a year.

hey maybe if Bernie had a bloc of votes in Congress they could pressure President Hillary from the left, wouldn't that be nice? eh too much work...

so much more fun to continue this silly purist liberal savior grandpa routine

This is a lot of responsibility to be laying on one guy's head tbh! Why are all of those things his job? Why does it all have to happen this one election cycle? And your whole list starts with "once the demand is there..." and yet you want Bernie to quit before he finishes confirming this. It's strange. We're talking about putting the brakes on, and hopefully reversing, the general tendency this entire party has had for more than two decades. Sanders's campaign can do a lot and I'm really glad it's happening; I acknowledge it can't do everything, but why does that then mean "well then he may as well just pack it in"? I don't necessarily think "Berniemania" will sustain itself until the 2018 midterms but I don't think the interest in progressive policies to address income inequality is just this year's fad.

The only development that would actually seriously shock me is if, in 2018, Bernie is not all over the fucking place making speeches with Candidate X in cities where Bernie did well this year, working the crowd, doing some of his 'greatest hits' and speaking about how excited he is that Young People like Candidate X here are the real future of the Political Revolution In This Country. I mean, that shit writes itself.

Also in case my labored joke about transmissions from Future Bernie Sanders wasn't clear: Howard Dean was not elected DNC chair until February 2005, so holding whatever he accomplished in that post over what Sanders should supposedly be doing right this second is, uh, odd.

what's the point of staying in all the way up to the convention,

I already answered this, but the point of staying in until the convention is that people in New York and California and a bunch of other places have not fucking voted yet, thank you, and we would like our voices to also be registered in this grand tallying-up of opinion, thank you very much for your concern.

xp I take it you won't be voting for the silly purist liberal savior grandpa then.

Tim Robbins at a Sanders rally, really hitting the point that it matters what all the primary voters think:

"After the Southern primaries, you had called the election. And who's fooling who? Winning South Carolina in the Democratic primary is about as significant as winning Guam. No Democrat is going to win in the general election. Why do these victories have so much significance?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/04/tim-robbins-figures-that-clintons-south-carolina-win-is-about-as-important-as-winning-guam/

Yeah that's a dumb argument, and I would like to take the opportunity to formally disassociate myself from Tim Robbins, though I may still finish watching that tape of The Player sometime.

Howard Dean was not elected DNC chair until February 2005, so holding whatever he accomplished in that post over what Sanders should supposedly be doing right this second is, uh, odd.

Dean also withdrew way earlier and made it clear he was willing and eager to work with the party apparatus. Bernie's not going to replace Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (lolzy as that would be, and I would welcome such a development) precisely because he demonstrates no interest in the party machinery - and when he does express an interest it's usually one of contempt. After decades in congress he has few allies, very little congressional support, etc. This guy is not a team player, he never has been and he doesn't want to be. But you need a team to make legislative gains.

if, in 2018, Bernie is not all over the fucking place making speeches with Candidate X in cities where Bernie did well this year, working the crowd, doing some of his 'greatest hits' and speaking about how excited he is that Young People like Candidate X here are the real future of the Political Revolution In This Country.

yeah this isn't going to happen. setting this aside for future reference fwiw

xp

oh good, well, since we both already know exactly what sanders is going to do with his time in the future, it's probably safe to hold whatever it is against him

I'm holding what he's doing right now against him - all those primary donations, pissed away

on things like billboards in the most liberal distict in the country

i consider my donation money pretty well spent tbh. you've probably given him a lot more though.

Doctor Casino, what do you think of the Sanders' campaign's election strategy in the south? From the nyt story upthread:

The morning after the Nevada vote, Mr. Sanders pulled Mr. Devine away from church and Mr. Weaver from breakfast to talk about strategy. They agreed that Mr. Sanders would still compete for the South Carolina primary on Feb. 27, but he would shift his plans for the March 1 “Super Tuesday” contests. Instead of spending money on ads and ground operations to compete across the South, Mr. Sanders would all but give up on those states and would focus on winning states where he was more popular, like Colorado and Minnesota, which would at least give him some victories to claim.

The reason: Mr. Sanders and his advisers and allies knew that black voters would be decisive in those Southern contests, but he had been unable to make significant inroads with them. He had hoped to. At one meeting with advisers in December, he suggested campaigning hard in Alabama in January, but his team insisted that he focus on winning Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Mrs. Clinton went on to rout him in Alabama, as well as in South Carolina and other Southern states, running up huge margins in African-American areas.

These victories allowed her to compile a significant delegate lead, given that Democrats award delegates based on the candidates’ vote totals.

[...]

Mr. Weaver, the Sanders campaign manager, called South Carolina “a disappointment” but said the senator had had no choice but to focus on winning states on Super Tuesday rather than competing everywhere for delegates. Had Mr. Sanders not, he might have carried only his home state, Vermont, on March 1.

“What would the media narrative have been after that day? I can tell you: It would have been devastating,” Mr. Weaver said.

Instead, he won there, as well as in Minnesota, Colorado and Oklahoma.

I'm holding what he's doing right now against him - all those primary donations, pissed away
--Οὖτις

I think continuing to focus attention from Hillary's left is pretty valuable actually.

I'm making a point to avoid all Bernie v Hillary stuff at this point, just had enough of it. Regardless of whose campaign is doing what I kinda don't wanna know.

i think it's pretty ridiculous to play armchair quarterback on bernie's campaign considering how much of a longshot he was at the outset. i'd ay whatever they decided to do it worked pretty well.

as far as punting the south -- delegates are awarded proportionally. if he had committed more time and resources to the south at the expense of some of his stronger states, maybe he only loses by 20 points in states like alabama and FL, but then maybe some of the states he won landslides in clinton gets closer to him too. in the end it's probably a wash

yeah he's run a good, smart campaign imo, albeit a quixotic one

Doctor Casino, what do you think of the Sanders' campaign's election strategy in the south?

I think we talked about his Southern performance for weeks on this board. I file the 'strategy' part under areas where I wish he'd done more to live up to the kind of candidate I'd like him to be. Since we Sanders supporters are famously idealists unable to reckon with the real world, it has been a real strain to repeatedly note on this thread my disappointments in his shortcomings, but there it is. I don't like the idea of a candidate who's trying to build a progressive base seemingly writing off whole swaths of the country and whole groups of people. I also don't like the idea of Bernie being driven out of the race months ago, and his ideas relegated to the dustbin as discredited losers with no traction outside of New Hampshire. I dunno what exactly I would have wanted him to do there. Maybe pick a couple of Southern states and try really hard in them, like a clearer "I haven't given up on wanting to hear what African-American voters are thinking, and try to win them over" approach.

I don't like the idea of a candidate who's trying to build a progressive base seemingly writing off whole swaths of the country and whole groups of people.

rich tradition of this with the left, sadly

hey maybe if Bernie had a bloc of votes in Congress they could pressure President Hillary from the left, wouldn't that be nice? eh too much work...

― Οὖτις, Monday, April 4, 2016 5:41 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://www.wakely2016.com/

hey if yall hate climate change deniers, this guy is running against lamar smith who is on a the space, tech,etc cmte and also i am volunteering in this campaign. wakely worked with cesar chavez and did labor organizing, was unitarian minister, and was recruited by the green party, ultimately ran as a dem.

sure. complicated in this case by the limited resources of any campaign etc. etc. basically it hinges on, how crucial to the bigger 'cause' is it that he rack up some 'wins' even though the delegates are awarded proportionally? i think pretty darned important, given a) the way these things play out narratively, in the media etc., and b) the value of showing that you can WIN a statewide election (of democrats, obv) campaigning on this stuff against a mega-politician with a million advantages. but then, i'm not among the groups being potentially written out of the picture that way.

that said, i'm in the difficult position of defending bernie against two contradictory charges: that he should pragmatically quit races he can't win (which i don't agree with), and that he should for the good of his base-building project, compete enthusiastically in places he can't possibly win (which i endorse, but which, if followed consistently, might have deep-sixed the campaign). i can, with my disappointments and mixed feelings acknowledged, have a reasoned conversation about the latter, but not if i'm simultaneously having to talk the talk of the former. this is further complicated by the fact that the pragmatist charge is being leveled by shakey, who i'd rather argue with, and the shoot-the-moon national referendum is being strongly implied by freddy b, who drives me up a wall pretty consistently.

guy looks great. I hate Lamar Smith. I will be in San Antonio in a few weeks, will tell everyone to vote for him

actually wait, i managed to already forget that freddy was outed as a mordy sock, so please ignore most of the above

I expect to learn more about open conventions the next few months that any Canadian need ever know. (I know about them to an extent already, insofar as all our conventions work that way. A few years ago the Liberal leadership was won by Stéphane Dion, who was nobody's first choice but had the least resistance and came up through the middle, from third or fourth on the first ballot to winning it in three or four.)

I didn't realize till a few minutes ago that a few states, at least on the Republican side, send delegates who are completely unbound. They mentioned North Dakota: 28 delegates, they can all do whatever they want right from the first ballot, and they don't even have to declare before the convention. Truly, what's the point of even having a primary there?

Most states seem to have delegates committed to reflecting the primary/caucus results for the first ballot or two.

guy looks great. I hate Lamar Smith. I will be in San Antonio in a few weeks, will tell everyone to vote for him

― Οὖτις, Monday, April 4, 2016 6:29 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thx, plz send money

A few years ago the Liberal leadership was won by Stéphane Dion, who was nobody's first choice but had the least resistance and came up through the middle, from third or fourth on the first ballot to winning it in three or four.)

I'm pretty sure that when I voted in the 2011 NDP leadership race, there was just one vote held of all party members in the country. We voted with a ranked ballot, using instant runoff voting, basically. I don't remember any business with delegates or voting on multiple ballots.

OK, Wikipedia makes a slight correction: it was one-member-one-vote but you only submitted a ranked IRV ballot if you voted early. If you voted on the day of the convention, you submitted a ballot for each round.

actually wait, i managed to already forget that freddy was outed as a mordy sock, so please ignore most of the above
--never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino)

Really?

actually i'm really sad to report that i double checked and i think this pet theory of mine was based on day-drunkenly misreading a mordy post. i was really stoked about it though, felt it would explain a lot. "morderik b."

(xposts) I realize "nobody's first choice" was an exaggeration with regards to Dion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election,_2006#Results

He had about 900 delegates support him on the first ballot, good for third; it took four ballots in all. (For anybody who checks the link, yes, that Ken Dryden.) Anyway, the upcoming Republican convention does seem to have the potential for something similar, with delegates drifting in Cruz's direction (or, god forbid, Kasich's) over the course of three ballots.

I thought Dean a terrible candidate but his 50-state strategy was a marvelous and impressive thing that at least suggested the possibility of another motley New Deal type coalition. To date it's the only Dem strategy that sought to flip local races .