Buttload of Faith: the 2016 Presidential Primary Thread (Pt 2)

ha that's interesting -- both silver and the "PD" thesis are taking a bath this time around! i'll have to read that.

I think no matter whether Trump wins or not it could easily be argued that the tumult this time around builds on the tumult in twelve. GOP never did anything about the fundamental problems, and it became even more crazy.

Yeah, the 538-thing is pretty fun. They are kinda floundering at the site, but they're pretty open about the fact that they're floundering. Am listening to their new podcast atm.

the inevitable winner almost got blindsided by actual voters who just didn't like him

the crazy thing is that voters of the Republican party like Trump so much. this is radically different from the GOP I grew up knowing. the past five decades have seen a nationwide sorting process where all the yahoos have deserted the Democratic Party and identify exclusively as Republicans. In the 60's on the whole the yahoos identified as democrats. Trump just puts a bright spotlight on this fact.

Wait was there really any chance that Romney would lose to Gingrich or Santorum??? I get that Mittens wasn't super popular but compared to those dudes he's still a winning bet.

You'd have to reconstruct the whole timeline, but Romney seemed extremely weak up to that point. He lost Iowa, won NH, lost South Carolina, won Florida and Nevada, lost Colorado/Missouri/Minnesota, and won Maine by 2% over Ron Paul. If he'd lost Michigan, one of his two supposed home states (and where his father was popular), I honestly felt like everything might have unraveled. I don't know exactly who would have stepped in--I know, who was left?--but maybe Bush would have entered, long before he was this year's joke. I don't know. Anyway, Romney won Michigan just barely, by 3%, even though he spent a ton of money. He also won Arizona that day, and he went on from there. (With still a couple of setbacks left.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

Anyway, the inevitable candidate did indeed win. But all that craziness with Perry and Cain and Gingrich and Santorum does, to me, feel like a rough sketch of what's going on this year, except this time it looks like the foot is completely off the brake.

Not just off the brake, but I would posit that the entire linkage is gone, with every bolt cheerily yanked out by supporters who are the end result of 50 years of Goldwater & beyond resentment-stoking.

Just to extend the metaphor a little more.

There's a feeling where you could have Richard Hofstatder come back after being departed for 40+ years, look around, and say, "Yep, not too suprising. Romney's kid flamed out that hard, huh?"

ha yeah i forgot how decently Santorum did last time

i sure as shit voted for him in my state's open primary

You'd have to reconstruct the whole timeline, but Romney seemed extremely weak up to that point.

I won't dispute he was weak (he was ultimately a weak candidate) but I don't think there was really ever a point where it looked like there was a candidate who would step in and take the mantle of the "favorite".

O'Malley is 100% after a cabinet position, right? He can't possibly be thinking of 2024, least of all based on his dynamic campaign this time around.

He probably could've had that without running for president and raising the profile of his mediocre record.

what did Pitchfork award it?

probably higher than his percentage of the vote

Hillary's yelling a lot tonight. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, proceed apace.)

it doesn't matter if you're 'weak' if no one else is stronger

https://media.giphy.com/media/4oZCwGRbSbzva/giphy.gif

so who won the town hall?

i'm giving 'em all bear hugs.

i read that Hil has been talking about her relationship with Christ in the last week, so she's reaching waaaaay down into that bag o' tricks.

that was my first reaction too, but at least in the case of the town hall last night, she was asked a question about it answered it.

“I would say I am a Democrat because of my Christian values, but many of my friends would say they are Republicans because of their Christian values,” Mrs. Manning said. “So in these next few months as I am supporting you and defending you to my Republican friends,” she continued, “I am just curious, how you would say your beliefs align with the Ten Commandments and is that something that’s important to you?"

and her answer, in part:

The famous discussion on the Sermon on the Mount should be something that you really pay attention to. There’s a lot of great Bible studies: What does the Sermon on the Mount really mean? What is it calling us to do and to understand? Because it sure does seem to favor the poor and the merciful and those who in worldly terms don’t have a lot but who have the spirit that God recognizes as being at the core of love and salvation.

So there is much to be learned and I have been very disappointed and sorry that Christianity, which has such great love at its core, is sometimes used to condemn so quickly and judge so harshly. When I think part of the message that I certainly have tried to understand and live with is to look at yourself first, to make sure you are being the kind of person you should be in how you are treating others, and I am by no means a perfect person, I will certainly confess that to one and all, but I feel the continuing urge to try to do better, to try to be kinder, to try to be more loving, even with people who are quite harsh.

So, I think you have to keep asking yourself, if you are a person of faith, what is expected of me and am I actually acting the way that I should? And that starts in small ways and goes out in very large ones, but it’s something that I take very seriously. So thank you for asking.”

that seems to be a pretty thoughtful response. it's a lot better than what i would come up with if someone asked me about what i thought about my beliefs, that's for sure!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/hillary-clinton-gets-personal-on-christ-and-her-faith/

ugh

i think Mrs Manning (the name of my 2nd-grade teacher btw) should spring the Ten Commandments on Bernie next. As they aren't exclusively "Christian."

Hil's response isn't substantively different from W's on the same issues, and doesn't specify if the guvmint is obliged to be charitable as well as the individual.

R Reich:

"The other day Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a 'recipe for gridlock.'

"Yet these days, nothing of any significance is feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock.

“I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.... But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.”

http://robertreich.org/post/138036377515

Elsewhere, George Pataki endorsed Rubio, so ain't no stoppin' him now.

because he’s leading a political movement for change - open to voting for bernie but here's the part of the argument i don't remotely buy

'But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.'

Except on reparations, because that is a bridge too far...

In a general election campaign, a pro-reparations stance would smoke him. Reality.

Stick to Denmark.

hell yeah i'll raise taxes evokes the ghost of mondale for sure but i'm not it's anywhere near the political poison it was depending on details and pitch

lol 'reality'

charlotte rampling over here

fuck you

tick tock white walker

no really, fuck you

Get ready, gang, for Tom Delay has the dope: FBI 'ready to indict' Hillary Clinton over private email use.

number of times "The FBI" has issued an indictment: 0

this reinforces something I was thinking the other day that doesn't seem to get reiterated often, which is that "outsider" candidates Trump and Cruz are disproportionately benefiting from the fact that there are just *too many fucking candidates* in the race. I'm inclined to think Trump's got a ceiling on his support within the party, but since none of the other poorly-polling establishment candidates are willing to get out of the race *or* savage the frontrunners it makes it look like Trump and Cruz are doing waaaaaay better than they actually are. I don't think either of those guys can command a majority of votes in the party primary (much less in the general), but because the actual GOP majority is so fragmented, it gives them this air of inevitability/invulnerability. The fact that neither Christie, Kasich, Bush, or Rubio are willing to give it up is actually quite dangerous for the party at this point, it's crazy.

Elsewhere, George Pataki endorsed Rubio, so ain't no stoppin' him now.

wow, how did i miss pataki dropping out

i do recall reading something a few months ago predicting that all the jackass billionaire pac money being able to prop up so many favorite pet candidates fucks up the process (esp for a party like the gop which has usually been quick to pick the next in line and rally around them quickly), keeps these losers alive well after they should've dropped out and makes it impossible for a candidate that might have emerged in previous primary seasons to emerge. otoh a single vote has yet to be cast. highly recommend that fivethirtyeight piece, i've seen alot of dumb gloating pieces going 'lol nate silver was wrong' but he actually looks into why some of his and others assumptions about this race may have been wrong, why that's interesting, and what it could mean.

yeah i'd never put together that citizens united might really fuck with them; totally changes the donor - candidate - party triangle

Jerry Falwell endorsed Trump

I wonder if next time around the super PAC donors are going to be so eager to shovel money into under-performing campaigns. Jeb's gotta be the worst investment ever.

538's good at predicting actual votes/elections so yeah any crowing about their demise seems v premature, to say the least

maybe jeb is waiting for the voting and thinking maybe a miracle can happen but as far as i can tell he's staying in purely to fuck over rubio and to keep trying to tell trump that the jerk store called

xposts

if 3 of the 4 establishment guys (christie, kasich, bush, rubio) dropped out and all of their supporters consolidated into support for the remaining megaestablishment candidate, that would still leave them around 22-23%, as of now. which would make rubio (or bush? still can't imagine christie or kasich as the lone establishment wolf) look a lot better, sure, but it wouldn't exactly upend the primaries.

i, too, have trouble believing trump would ever get past 50% support, even among republicans. but iirc the last year has been full of doubts that he would ever make it into August without saying so terribly racist that he lost all support (he fulfilled his end of the bargain, admittedly), that he would ever make it to 20%, then 30%, then 40%. there is no underestimating the awfulness of this country. i place my imaginary $ bet on the side of total ignorance

The fact that neither Christie, Kasich, Bush, or Rubio are willing to give it up is actually quite dangerous for the party at this point, it's crazy.

so you want one of the presumed beneficiaries ofa "let's not nominate a nut" movement to just drop out before anybody votes, out of some i'm-just-not-the-guy nobility. Makes sense!

I mean, pick one of those four estabguys. Can you imagine everybody else's supporters saying, "Why of course! Him!"

I sort of can actually, but that's obviously the GOP's problem right now

https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/692026872939593728

John Rocker endorses Trump

ugh i just lost a really long post about this but basically I do think the establishment-consolidation thing is still a viable possibility, if less compelling than it was when I was writing about "Bocephus" in December... i.e. before Carson's people finished filtering over to Cruz. but nonetheless: nobody who is supporting rubio, bush, christie or kasich has trump or cruz as their second, third, fourth, or fifth choice. there's just way too much distance - they would have bailed already if not! cruz DOES have more room to grow than trump IMO, because of the remaining carson supporters, and the marginal numbers from huckabee and santorum. all trump can hope for from the small-potatoes crowd is maybe a portion of paul and fiorina voters.

people dropping out won't happen out of altruism obviously. but it still will happen. the severe elongation of the campaign/news enterprise makes it seem like "wow, trump is still leading, that must mean something" when very little has actually "happened." the day after iowa is usually prime time for people who had no chance to try and make a dignified exit. "well, we made a good try of it, yadda yadda, very crowded field, yadda yadda, mainstream media giving the spotlight to a few headline-grabbing candidates, thanks to everybody." i mean you certainly don't do it the day before iowa because hey, you never know - - - maybe your closest competitor is hit by some big scandal that week or you suddenly catch fire at the last second the way santorum did last time. everybody's thinking that could be them. but everyone also knows that if that doesn't happen for them, they can't do this forever. agreed though that the super PAC backing has certainly made it possible for doomed candidacies to keep rolling, who would not have done so in other races. so maybe that will continue to be different.

the day after new hampshire will probably be more interesting for the whole "establishment candidates' prisoners' dilemma" thing. christie for example has put all his chips there as the best chance to emerge as the front-runner of the non-front-runners. if he actually gets beat by kasich (who's now in striking distance of third place there!) it may be time for him to make that little speech.

Oh man, if Kasich becomes the establishment rallying point...