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

We discussed it a bit upthread. And I said I thought the Sanders campaign were assholes. Not Sanders himself, but the guys running the campaign.

'moderate candidates are more electable' is based on evidence from elections not gut instinct. sanders has less baggage than clinton but most of the country hasn't been fully introduced to his platform, which contains tons of things that the majority of Americans don't actually want.

right, but conflating the nomination process and the general election is a really basic error. being the most likely candidate to be nominated by your party doesn't make you the most electable candidate- in fact, in the republican party those two qualities are basically mutually exclusive at this point. it's true that clinton's "inevitability narrative" in terms of the nomination is by this point not just a narrative, but a statistical likelihood, but i can see why sanders supporters are frustrated- a lot of those votes were obtained under basically false pretenses, and if sanders had a do-over he'd win. that's not how politics works, mind you, but sanders supporters tend not to be completely political creatures and are more motivated by an arbitrary and idealistic sense of "fairness" than by the actual rules by which political campaigns are conducted. they feel like the game was rigged, which it was! and there's little point in explaining that the sorts of rigging that goes on in the campaign exists largely to prevent the sort of rules lawyering that mcgovern pulled on them in '72.

Um, no. That's hilariously wrong.

Clinton is winning because she has the broadest support - while Sanders definitely has the deepest.

And the whole idea that the typical Clinton voter was scammed by the media, simply wasn't smart enough to look through the lies of the MSM, is close to offensive. Harry Enten pointed out recently a new theory, that Clinton won black areas because that coincided with low internet use.

I'm confused what the false pretenses were... that Hilary was more well known and had more money (initially anyway)?

xp Krugman made the argument that non-white votes were so savvy that they saw right past the horrible MSM lies about Hillary.

Clinton is winning because she has the broadest support - while Sanders definitely has the deepest.

about that deep support

http://i.imgur.com/RnbdaYn.png

bernie definitely has the most enthusiastic internet posters tho.

Democratic supporters only in that poll though.

"definitely" followed by meaningless statement

love election season

democratic/democatic leaners xp

That's a weird question. Is that enthusiasm for voting for their candidate or enthusiasm for voting in general?

here's the link to the poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190343/trump-clinton-supporters-lead-enthusiasm.aspx

i got up to the part of the 538 podcast last night where they said they got more questions about this poll than any other thing this election (guess why) but i was done walking my dog before they started to really discuss it. if they have any interesting insight i'll report back.

They don't, I don't think so.

So excitement for race in general... given that their preferred candidate is likely going to lose it makes sense that Sanders supporters would be less enthusiastic at this point.

There is something to what Fred is saying because the level of Sanders' support under the $200 level is pretty impressive. Is that broad or deep or just okay that's pretty cool I'm not sure but it is a little different than Hillary's support

I'm less sure about the numbers. Perhaps Sanders supporters are less enthusiastic about the election because at this points it seems more likely than not that he will lose + a lot of them hate Hillary, much more than Hillary supporters hate Sanders (I think. Hillary still has more favorability amongst dems, iirc)

the "How much thought have you given to the upcoming election for president -- quite a lot, or only a little?" question is also interesting vis-a-vis the claim that hillary supporters are low information voters

people's enthusiasm for voting in the election

If they were polling people's enthusiasm for voting in the general election, and not people's enthusiasm for their preferred candidate, then it is not surprising that supporters of the most likely nominees are most 'enthusiastic'.

non-white votes were so savvy that they saw right past the horrible MSM lies about Hillary

the whiter/more liberal states

Sanders has done well with a number of non-white regions/communities, e.g. Asian-dominated Hawaii, Alaska with its large Native population, Arab-Americans in Michigan, etc. Non-black != white.

3xp

That question is dumb though. Having thought about something doesn't mean you have a lot of information or even good information about it.

I'm less sure about the numbers. Perhaps Sanders supporters are less enthusiastic about the election because at this points it seems more likely than not that he will lose + a lot of them hate Hillary, much more than Hillary supporters hate Sanders (I think. Hillary still has more favorability amongst dems, iirc)

― Frederik B, Tuesday, April 5, 2016 8:39 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"definitely"

"Perhaps"
"I think"
"iirc"
"less sure"
"supporters"
"amongst"
"numbers"
"caek"

Clinton is winning because she has the broadest support - while Sanders definitely has the deepest.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, April 5, 2016 8:17 AM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is baseless (and meaningless) and you act like someone reading their horoscope when shown a poll

you are very bad at this thread imo

Ok, I give. Sanders has nothing.

Is that better?

There's no support for Sanders in the US, and the future for progressivism in the country is nonexistent.

I don't think you understand my point but if you stop posting then we can call it even

Oh, too bad. Then you lose :(

Humanity lost.

On Monday, Mr. Cruz amplified calls for Mr. Kasich to step aside and predicted that “the people would quite rightly revolt” if party leaders tried to elevate anyone other than Mr. Cruz or Mr. Trump at a contested convention in July.

i had assumed that open support for violence was trump's territory alone, but i guess cruz wanted to get in the game too.

i'm not sure if trump will make it to 1,237 delegates. but i do think that if it ends up being a contested convention he's not going to walk out of it as the republican nominee. does anyone think that trump supporters are going to go down quietly? i admit that i'm fascinated by the whole prospect because it would be like nothing i've witnessed in my lifetime but things are going to get frightening pretty quickly if violence breaks out. all of the GOP's courting of the "take our country back" crowd, both tacitly and openly, could really come back to bite them.

tbf if saying the people will revolt is a call for violence...

Trump and Cruz + their support are proving to be two versions of the result of years of over the top rhetoric that's been somehow out looneying itself to reach ridiculous degrees... I've wondered whether its the kind of thing that can reach a climactic point and implode... maybe this will be it?

xpost
then bernie sanders' army of facebook likers is going to march down the street with bazookas if his call for a political revolution goes unheeded?

i think it's a little bit different in the GOP context. would anyone be surprised if trump supporters turned their violence outward and beyond beating the shit out of protesters at his rallies?

Are they going to go with pitchforks to Rinse Pubis' house?

I was reading a comma after beyond, but you mean further than beating up protesters? He has been talking about sending his supporters to Bernie rallies - but at the point which Trump/Cruz are talking about, it'd be other Republicans that would be the target of their wrath.

(But I think I remember Phil D pointing out that he would be one of many people who would be target-adjacent?)

I was reading a comma after beyond, but you mean further than beating up protesters?

to this point their violence has been contained within his own rallies in closed door events. but i'm imagining there are gonna be juuuuuust a few people outside of the republican convention this year, both progressive and conservative protesters of all stripes. that will already be a biiiit on the tense side, and then imagine in the midst of that chaos, an announcement that trump didn't win the first or second votes, and that some typical establishment guy is gonna end up getting the nomination somehow.

i guess i'm on the paranoid side of the spectrum, but i tend to read a bit of nixonland before i go to bed most nights, and 1968 doesn't seem that far away from me. we've changed as a country in many ways, but in some ways not at all

would anyone be surprised if trump supporters turned their violence outward and beyond beating the shit out of protesters at his rallies?

this is already happening!

i am very worried about violence at the rnc this year karl, i don't think we're being paranoid

i think it's going to be really ugly

if the nomination is "taken" from trump though i think the outrage will be milder if cruz is chosen as opposed to kasich

but i'm imagining there are gonna be juuuuuust a few people outside of the republican convention this year, both progressive and conservative protesters of all stripes.

I imagine there won't, from the progressive side at least - you'd have to be insane?

this is already happening!

ugh, i don't know want to know. i mean, i want to know, but i don't want to know.

I imagine there won't, from the progressive side at least - you'd have to be insane?

― Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:06 AM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there will most definitely be progressive protestors at the rnc this year, there always is

also, remember a few weeks ago when protesters shut down the trump rally in chicago? i don't think you have to be insane, just very brave.

Bloomberg threw a few hundred protestors at the NYC RNC in jail for just standing outside the protest pen etc

Can you imagine Cleveland, months after dealing with a police officer who shot a child for carrying a toy pistol, dealing with hundreds of angry Tea Baggers flaunting their live ammo in the streets.

This year is not really like previous years? I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

v wrong afaict