US Election Thread - Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa

[Gertrude]

Hey, I agree that there is a problem with Iowa always being first and having an inflated importance in the process. Ideally I would like to see it on a rotating schedule, group up about 5 or so geologically close states and have primaries on the same night for that grouping. Yes, Iowa is whiter than white, depends largely on an ag ecomony, and all the other things you want to say about us. Each state has their own identity and no one state should be elevated in the process and all should be equally heard.

Fuck your meaningless comment, no offense.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

 

Kal, please stop mentioning my facebook anything. That is unfair to the non-participants on Westeros that have no exposure to our FB. Mentioning it here is bullshit.

Yes, I am a Sanders supporter!

I am a partisan.

And we are kicking ass, regardless of my facebook likes.

Why is it unfair? Like I said, that was a lot of my exposure to polling and results. I'm not saying what your supporting is wrong or anything like that - but it's for better or worse a ton of what I see on a day to day basis. 

[alguien]

Re: the Dems, it seems like either side could spin this as a win, regardless of the actual results.

I like Sanders, but I still lean Hillary, because I think of myself as American Center Left. Also because I think she stands moderately better chance of capturing the crucial, frustrating 5-10% of independents that are necessary to win a general election. There are just too many old Supreme Court Justices for me to be comfortable with the calculus of Sanders winning the general election. And, it'd also be cool to finally have a female president, honestly. 

That said, I'm glad Bernie is in the race. He's forced Hillary to veer slightly leftward, and I think that's a good thing. 

Whichever one of them wins, and I still tend to think it will be Hillary, I will vote for them. (I live in Washington state, so it won't matter too much anyway.  )

 

[Kalbear]

And on that note - Nate Cohn is spinning this as good for Clinton, bad for Sanders. What's fascinating to me isn't this article (which I mildly agree with but don't think is particularly disastrous for Sanders) but the absurd attacks on Nate Cohn, like this one. His whole twitter timeline is kind of flooded with this. 

[Kelli Fury]

I don't really think it's a disaster for anyone. But, I think it's a bruise for Clinton. She had an absurd lead in Iowa up to very recently and it shows a real erosion in support for her, which is just bad press. The story won't be Hillary wins, it'll be that she lost or she narrowly won or she split the delegates. But she will have lost her dominance in news coverage, which was a major advantage for her. I spent the day phone banking and I heard a significant amount of people who would have preferred Sanders but were reluctantly leaning Clinton because she seemed more viable. Sanders coming within spitting distance of her now is going to get voters in later primary states to take a second look. Plus, O'Malley has enough delegates to tip this result. Since he dropped out, I may be wrong but I believe those delegates can choose another candidate at the state convention.

[lokisnow]

I was being more than a little sarcastic, but to me it's crazy that such an important event is held in such a meaningless state.

No offense to anyone in Iowa.  It's just the truth.

It also means that Presidential candidates keep having to kowtow to grain producers, thereby giving the world the abomination that is corn syrup.

This is easy for YOU to fix. All You have to do is get in contact with the leadership of your states party and immediately advocate it move it's primary or caucus into March.

If 47 states had March primaries, which they can all do rather easily, Iowa would stay first but wind up being extremely meaningless.

Primaries are determined by party, so long as your state isn't stepping on Iowa or new Hampshire status as first, national party can't stop them.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

At this rate Hillary's best bet is calling up Walder Frey for a band recommendation 

[OwloftheRainwood]

54 minutes ago, alguien said:

capturing the crucial, frustrating 5-10% of independents that are necessary to win a general election.

This is a myth, or was maybe true 30 years ago. This is not a reason to vote for Clinton. The key isn't winning independents in the middle: 1.) they are the least likely to vote 2.) when you dig into the research there are very, very few true "independents", it's mostly just a label and the voter leans one way or the other just as reliably as partisans. The bottom line is whose base turns out, especially in key swing states: Ohio & Florida. Period. We're in a paradoxical place where the country is anti-party, yet polarized based on ideology. 

[alguien]

15 minutes ago, OwloftheRainwood said:

This is a myth, or was maybe true 30 years ago. This is not a reason to vote for Clinton. The key isn't winning independents in the middle: 1.) they are the least likely to vote 2.) when you dig into the research there are very, very few true "independents", it's mostly just a label and the voter leans one way or the other just as reliably as partisans. The bottom line is whose base turns out, especially in key swing states: Ohio & Florida. Period. We're in a paradoxical place where the country is anti-party, yet polarized based on ideology. 

Well, it was true in the last two elections. Independents and undecideds, along with minority votes were key components to Obama victories. Independents nowadays, I find are super-old school former fiscal Republicans who don't want to vote democrat, but have drifted toward the middle because of right-wing lunacy and do so while "holding their noses." (anecdotally, I am related to about 50 of them)

And Florida, at least, was a non-factor in 2008 for sure. I remember, because I was in Grant Park about half a mile from the president, and had already done the math--and was super happy because Obama had already won before that dipshit state had finished their voting. In fact, in both elections, Obama would still have won without Florida and Ohio. (which, again, was so refreshing to me).

[Free Northman Reborn]

As a conservative, Trump's loss leaves one kind of disappointed. Not because Cruz is less of a conservative - far from it. But because his more extreme conservatism seems to set him up for failure in the general election. Does anyone think that he has a better chance of appealing to non-Republican voters than Trump had?

Or does a Cruz victory in the primaries set the country up for a guaranteed Hillary presidency?

Kind of glum after the Iowa results, I must be honest.

[alguien]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As a conservative, Trump's loss leaves one kind of disappointed. Not because Cruz is less of a conservative - far from it. But because his more extreme conservatism seems to set him up for failure in the general election. Does anyone think that he has a better chance of appealing to non-Republican voters than Trump had?

Or does a Cruz victory in the primaries set the country up for a guaranteed Hillary presidency?

Kind of glum after the Iowa results, I must be honest.

I think if anyone has anything to be happy about at the Iowa caucus, it's Marco Rubio. Cruz had to win. Trump didn't. (and most likely doesn't care). Iowa hasn't really been reliable to pick GOP candidates in the last two elections, but the fact that Rubio did so well in urban conservative precincts paints a hopeful picture for him in other states. He's going to pitch himself as the least crazy and hope that the relief at not having Trump or Cruz can bring out the GOP base and sway independents. 

Also, he's photogenic, can potentially sway Latino voters, can maybe bring Florida with him. 

Once Jebber brilliantly said he'd invade Iraq and took himself out of the game, I wondered if Rubio would be a dangerous candidate. Also, I have to admit, if Sanders somehow manages to win the democratic nomination and Rubio wins for the GOP, as a liberal, from an optics standpoint, it'd be a little surreal to have Democrats pitching the old white guy and Republicans pitching the young and upcoming Latino. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, alguien said:

I think if anyone has anything to be happy about at the Iowa caucus, it's Marco Rubio. Cruz had to win. Trump didn't. (and most likely doesn't care). Iowa hasn't really been reliable to pick GOP candidates in the last two elections, but the fact that Rubio did so well in urban conservative precincts paints a hopeful picture for him in other states. He's going to pitch himself as the least crazy and hope that the relief at not having Trump or Cruz can bring out the GOP base and sway independents. 

Also, he's photogenic, can potentially sway Latino voters, can maybe bring Florida with him. 

Once Jebber brilliantly said he'd invade Iraq and took himself out of the game, I wondered if Rubio would be a dangerous candidate. Also, I have to admit, if Sanders somehow manages to win the democratic nomination and Rubio wins for the GOP, as a liberal, from an optics standpoint, it'd be a little surreal to have Democrats pitching the old white guy and Republicans pitching the young and upcoming Latino. 

Interesting take on things.

Rubio is the type of leader Republicans probably need right now. Not a medieval Spanish Inquisition type like Cruz, or a blustering, ego driven showman like Trump.

Where is the smart, polished, highly educated orator with conservative values yet broad main stream appeal that can capture the heart of the Republican party, yet can also attract centrist voters? In my mind I envisage a dashing ex-Harvard Law School debating champion in his mid forties that can appeal to all generations?

Or alternatively, where is the sophisticated, experienced, distinguished career politician like George Bush Senior who looks presidential from the get go?

Why are most of the current Republican contenders kind of freakish looking and sounding?

These are tough times we live in.

EDIT

The saving grace is that the Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, looks like some feminist cyborg sent from the future with the single minded obsession to seize the presidency at whatever the cost. It will not grow tired, or hungry or lose focus. It will relentlessly pursue its egotistical goal of being the president, no matter what.

 

 

[Ordos]

Jim Gilmore got 12 votes in the Iowa Caucus! Think he's campaigning to be the punchline of future primary jokes?

[mormont]

49 minutes ago, alguien said:

I think if anyone has anything to be happy about at the Iowa caucus, it's Marco Rubio. Cruz had to win. Trump didn't. (and most likely doesn't care).

I disagree there, at least as far as Trump goes: I think this result is a blow to Trump, both politically and to his ego. His ego will recover (it's resilient), but he's leaned heavily on the image of himself as a success, a winner, and therefore to lose when he was ahead in the polls is politically damaging.

2 hours ago, Kay Fury said:

I don't really think it's a disaster for anyone. But, I think it's a bruise for Clinton. She had an absurd lead in Iowa up to very recently and it shows a real erosion in support for her, which is just bad press. The story won't be Hillary wins, it'll be that she lost or she narrowly won or she split the delegates. But she will have lost her dominance in news coverage, which was a major advantage for her. I spent the day phone banking and I heard a significant amount of people who would have preferred Sanders but were reluctantly leaning Clinton because she seemed more viable. Sanders coming within spitting distance of her now is going to get voters in later primary states to take a second look. Plus, O'Malley has enough delegates to tip this result. Since he dropped out, I may be wrong but I believe those delegates can choose another candidate at the state convention.

I can see all of this, but my impression is that this is a bruise for Sanders too. If he wants to actually win the nomination, not just give Clinton a challenge, I feel like he needed to win outright in Iowa. I've heard him on the news, and his supporters cheering as he talked about a tie as if it were a win, but it's not easy to build momentum from a draw.

35 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Where is the smart, polished, highly educated orator with conservative values yet broad main stream appeal that can capture the heart of the Republican party, yet can also attract centrist voters? In my mind I envisage a dashing ex-Harvard Law School debating champion in his mid forties that can appeal to all generations?

Or alternatively, where is the sophisticated, experienced, distinguished career politician like George Bush Senior who looks presidential from the get go?

Unfortunately, the Republican base would hate either of those candidates too much for them ever to gain traction.

[Gorn]

Some interesting stats from the entrance polls:

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ia/Rep

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ia/Dem

- Sanders has completely dominated the 17-29 age bracket, 84% - 14%. Most of Clinton support comes from older voters.

- On the Republican side, Trump actually won among self-described moderates and had his weakest percentage among "very conservative" voters.

- Sanders has also dominated the Independent voters, 69% - 26%. So much for the claim earlier in the thread that Clinton is the better candidate to attract those voters. On the Republican side, they are evenly spread out, which is surprising since I expected Trump to win those voters.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And on that note - Nate Cohn is spinning this as good for Clinton, bad for Sanders. What's fascinating to me isn't this article (which I mildly agree with but don't think is particularly disastrous for Sanders) but the absurd attacks on Nate Cohn, like this one. His whole twitter timeline is kind of flooded with this. 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/iowa-caucus-2016-live-updates/2016/02/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-liar-218599

Quote

 

The room at Bernie Sanders' rally here turned ice cold when Hillary Clinton's speech took over the televisions here.

The crowd booed loudly at first, then cheered when the sound cut out. The sound soon returned and Clinton was drowned out by further boos when she said "I'm a progressive who gets things done."
It escalated from there: Chants of "She's a liar!" took over the room before the campaign just entirely shut off the stream, cutting away from MSNBC entirely.

 

 

[Shryke]

7 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Some interesting stats from the entrance polls:

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ia/Rep

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ia/Dem

- Sanders has completely dominated the 17-29 age bracket, 84% - 14%. Most of Clinton support comes from older voters.

- On the Republican side, Trump actually won among self-described moderates and had his weakest percentage among "very conservative" voters.

- Sanders has also dominated the Independent voters, 69% - 26%. So much for the claim earlier in the thread that Clinton is the better candidate to attract those voters. On the Republican side, they are evenly spread out, which is surprising since I expected Trump to win those voters.

The third one you'd rather expect. People unwilling to identify as Democrats or associate themselves directly with the party are more likely to have an overlap with Sanders supporters.

I think a really interesting result was from another poll:

https://twitter.com/PostGraphics/status/694350673253629956/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

where the found that top issue for Sanders supporters was "Income Inequality"  and for Clinton supporters it was "Healthcare".

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

I can see all of this, but my impression is that this is a bruise for Sanders too. If he wants to actually win the nomination, not just give Clinton a challenge, I feel like he needed to win outright in Iowa. I've heard him on the news, and his supporters cheering as he talked about a tie as if it were a win, but it's not easy to build momentum from a draw.

I tend to agree. If Sanders can't win outright in Iowa, which is pretty friendly territory for him, what does that say about his chances in states like Nevada or New York? Maybe non-white Democrats will start rethinking their support of Clinton--could happen!--but right now I'm not inclined to view Iowa as a good sign for Sanders.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The surprising success of Bernie Sanders's insurgency should be a wake-up call to the Democratic establishment

Hillary Clinton breathed a "big sigh of relief" at the end of the night in Iowa. And odds are that she will eventually prevail and secure the nomination. But at the same time, a year ago — or even six months ago — the idea that Clinton would be trying to put a positive spin on a de facto tie in Iowa would have seemed wildly implausible. 

No modern political party's establishment has ever tried as hard to package up a nomination and tie it off with a bow as the Democrats did for Clinton over the course of 2016. And it didn't work out very well. The result ought to serve as a wake-up call to a Democratic Party elite that's gotten a little smug and out of touch over the past few years.

 

The Clinton campaign's strategy will, of course, be second-guessed as stumbling front-runners always are. But the larger problem is the way that party as a whole — elected officials, operatives, leaders of allied interest groups, major donors, greybeard elder statespersons, etc. — decided to cajole all viable non-Clinton candidates out of the race. This had the effect of making a Clinton victory much more likely than it would have been in a scenario when she was facing off against Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Deval Patrick. But it also means that the only alternative to Clinton is a candidate the party leaders don't regard as viable.

...

Sanders' most significant legacy, win or lose, is going to be what his campaign has showed about the ideological proclivities of younger Americans. Specifically, he showed that the hefty liberal tilt of under-35 voters is not a question of Barack Obama's cool-for-a-politician persona or simply an issue of being repulsed by this or that GOP stance. 

Clinton tried hard to make waves with superficial appeals to youth culture, include Yaaas Hillary t-shirts, appearing with the cast of Broad City, and campaigning in Iowa with Katy Perry.

But the hearts of America's young people — including, crucially, young women — are with the crotchety, 74 year-old socialist from Vermont. This both tends to confirm DC Democrats' conviction that demographic headwinds are at their back and complicates their hazy sense that faith in demographics is a substitute for political strategy. The problem is that the young progressives who the party is counting on to deliver them to the promised land are, as Sanders has shown, really quite left-wing and aren't going to be bought off with a stray Snapchat gimmick or two. To retain their loyalty and enthusiasm, party leaders are going to need to offer some kind of theory about how Democrats intend to deliver change and get results.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

- Sanders has also dominated the Independent voters, 69% - 26%. So much for the claim earlier in the thread that Clinton is the better candidate to attract those voters.

I'm not sure, though,that independent voters who turn out for a Democratic caucus are the same independent voters who Clinton is supposed to be better qualified to attract. Seems to me that the former sort are more likely to include a high proportion of people to the left of the Democratic party (like Sanders himself), rather than swing Republican/Democrat voters.

Onion, good article. I'm always in favour of more competition - it gives a better result - and I do think that at least some of the Sanders support comes down to people who are frustrated with the lack of choice and want an alternative. (Of course, Sanders was able to harness that, while O'Malley wasn't.)