U.S Elections, The Ides of March; Et tu Ohio?

[Paladin of Ice]

4 minutes ago, PromethiumWings said:

Secondly, maybe I, as a European who's sole real experience of the US is visiting New York, am not quite getting the nuances, but how could Sanders win in Michigan but lose in Illinois? They seem remarkably similar. Or was the margin just so small that it was a toss-up in both cases?

Basically, it was about the small margin of victory. Michigan went 49% and change to 48% and change to Sanders, Illinois went 50% and change to 48% and change to Clinton. Sanders may have been buoyed a bit in Michigan by debates right before hand, which included fiery language on his desire to rebuild Flint and the local unions getting pumped to support him.

On another issue regarding last night's election that I find fascinating and am spreading the word of everywhere I can: Black Lives Matter had an effect by kicking out two prosecutors who were widely seen as mishandling cases where cops killed black people.

There were two little-known but stunning upsets during the Super Tuesday II elections on March 15: Anita Alvarez lost her bid for reelection for state's attorney of Cook County, Illinois, and Tim McGinty lost his reelection bid for county prosecutor in Cuyahoga, County.

At face value, Alvarez's loss to Kim Foxx, a fellow Democrat, and McGinty's loss to Michael O'Malley, also both Democrats, may not seem like a huge deal. But both of the incumbents lost, in part, because the Black Lives Matter movement criticized them for mishandling and neglecting high-profile police shooting cases over the past few years.

Moreover, it's very rare for an incumbent prosecutor to actually lose a bid for reelection. About 95 percent of incumbent prosecutors won reelection, and 85 percent ran unopposed in general elections, according to data from nearly 1,000 elections between 1996 and 2006 analyzed by Ronald Wright of Wake Forest University School of Law.

Yet prosecutors are enormously powerful in the criminal justice system. They decide which laws will actually be enforced, with almost no checks on that power outside of elections. For instance, in 2014 Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson announced that he will no longer enforce low-level marijuana arrests. Think about how this works: Pot is still very much illegal in New York, but the district attorney has flat-out said that he will ignore an aspect of the law — and it's completely within his discretion to do so.

...

Alvarez drew a serious challenge to her reelection bid after she failed for more than a year to prosecute the Chicago police officer who in October 2014 shot and killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. Only after a court forced authorities to in November 2015 release a video of the shooting did Alvarez, facing serious protests, decide to file charges.

McGinty, meanwhile, was challenged after he didn't land criminal charges against the Cleveland police officer who in 2014 shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice or a conviction against a Cleveland police officer who in 2012 shot and killed Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams.

But as much as Alvarez and McGinty's records on police shootings mattered, they also played a big role in their local criminal justice systems during their time in office. Alvarez, for example, had an unusually tough-on-crime record for a Democrat — to the point that the Cook County Board president described her as "one of the people who had to be dragged kicking and screaming through this [criminal justice] reform process," as Jessica Pishko explained for the Nation.

Still, voters and lawmakers very rarely force prosecutors like Alvarez and McGinty to answer for their records — even as they play a key role in perpetuating the kind of mass incarceration that criminal justice reformers now want to end. But if the justice system is to really change, America will likely need more upsets like those in Cook and Cuyahoga counties.

Too long didn't read version: (and this is already just a small piece of a much larger article) the prosecutors involved in the Tamir Rice case, (the 12 year old that cops shot as soon as they arrived on the scene without warning, then roughed up the kid's sister when she went to her brother's side and failed to give him any First Aid while waiting for the ambulance) and the Laquan McDonald case, (which involved the authorities trying to bury footage of the event for a year) both got bounced. This is pretty significant because prosecutors are almost always reelected, and usually run for reelection unopposed.

Of course, my opinion on prosecutors doing the Grand Jury thing to charge police is that it's a load of bull, because literally the job of a prosecutor is to work with the police, which means the system has a massive built in conflict of interest, especially since given how we've seen police groups and unions go after anyone who says a bad word about them, do we think there wouldn't be any professional consequences for a prosecutor who aggressively went after police misconduct?

Furthermore, if some ordinary criminal was brought to be tried by a prosecutor who was a colleague or friend, we wouldn't waste a second in saying there was a huge conflict of interest there, but somehow we act like it's ok in the case of police misconduct. So while in my ideal world I'd like to a different system entirely for how we review and decide to try police misconduct, at least it's good to see the public being willing to act as some kind of check on the system in this case.

And given the lack of attention and small voter pools that vote in these sorts of elections, it may be a very effective target for bringing about some change.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fez,

What makes me uncomfortable is that people have been saying that about Trumps chances at every step on the way.  He keeps winning.  What if the people showing up to vote for Trump are outside normal models and screwing up normal predictions?  I fear he can win.

Yeah, I'm experiencing a similar fear. I think it's going to take more than Fez's statement that folks would rather eat glass than vote for him. They're going to have to hate him enough to vote for the most viable opponent who faces him, regardless as to how distasteful that may be for them.

[Kalbear]

Remember, Trump starred on WWE and was the victim of the Stone Cold Stunner.

 

[Guy Kilmore]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I'm experiencing a similar fear. I think it's going to take more than Fez's statement that folks would rather eat glass than vote for him. They're going to have to hate enough enough to vote for the most viable opponent who faces him, regardless as to how distasteful that may be for them.

Or stay home.  There is the third choice.  Sit-out, none of the above and I could see plenty of people falling in that category.

[S John]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

I want to believe your analysis is correct, but he has been defying expectations for a long time. And I expect a lot of the GOP's now-seemingly-principled "Never Trump" types to eventually go the way of Chris Christie and Ben Carson and talk themselves into supporting him. Especially Hillary Clinton -- they have marinated in their hate for her for decades.

Yup.  I expect that ultimately most of the republican party will eventually fall in line behind Trump and I think that people underestimate just how polarizing Hillary Clinton is.  The right has hated her for a long long time.  She is not getting a substantial number of crossover votes.

Back in '08, even though he was a senator, Obama was a relative unknown and considered an outsider in his own way.  His candidacy excited the base, who turned out, and he won against someone who had been around forever but wasn't particularly exciting as a candidate.  

I see parallels there with Trump.  Nationally he's the more exciting candidate, and I don't at all mean that exciting = good, but as far as drumming up interest?  He has done a masterful job of that.  Nobody can look away from this fiasco.  

Combine the rabble-rousing of Trumpkins who will turn out to vote, the rest of the Republican party eventually falling in line, a well-entrenched dislike of Clinton from conservatives, and a lukewarm reception of Clinton from certain groups of likely Democrat voters and I think this is going to be an uphill battle.  That is not even getting into the possibility of Clinton's legal issues rearing their ugly head in a bad way.  And whether or not anything comes from the email stuff, you better believe that Trump will relentlessly hammer her on that and anything else he can get his hands on.

 

I think the Democrats made a big mistake.  I have no idea what happens behind closed doors, but I suspect that they (correctly) suspected that Clinton would ultimately defeat Sanders and that maybe other serious candidates were encouraged to step aside for the coronation of Hillary.  Not seeing Trump coming, that may be their undoing in '16.  I think if you had a Democrat candidate up there who was a little less openly socialist (and I love and voted for Bernie) and with a lot less baggage than Clinton then Trump would be summarily stomped in the general.  But with Clinton there isn't going to be any lack of material for the unscrupulous Teflon Donald.

 

[lokisnow]

30 minutes ago, PromethiumWings said:

Three quick observations on this. First of all, considering what people's mood seems to be on the internet, if the Donald wins a plurality of votes but gets screwed over by the party bosses come June, angry mobs might mess up Cleaveland (the Gop convention's in Cleavland, right?).

Secondly, maybe I, as a European who's sole real experience of the US is visiting New York, am not quite getting the nuances, but how could Sanders win in Michigan but lose in Illinois? They seem remarkably similar. Or was the margin just so small that it was a toss-up in both cases?

Finally, I think that what I wrote here still stands: http://promethiumwings.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/super-tuesday-and-a-game-of-rock-paper-scissor/

Why would there be any angry mobs? The people who will be in cleveland are not the people attending Trump's rallies. Trumps delegates will all be establishment republican party members who mostly hate him with a deep and abiding passion. They will vote for Trump on the first ballot, and if he is not selected, none of these so-called Trump delegates are going to riot in protest. They are probably going to party in celebration. 

There has to be a Trump faction of ardent Trump supporters at the convention to generate a Riot, and Trump will not have those people in attendance.

 

For example, Trump won the Louisiana primary, but ted Cruz won a  MASSIVE victory at the Lousiana caucus. The sole purpose of the caucus is for the party establishment to select delegates to send to the convention. So every single one of the Louisiana delegates is hand picked by Ted Cruz's campaign to be a Ted Cruz supporter, and while they will be bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot, they will enthusiastically dump him after that, and every single one of Louisiana's delegates will flip to support Ted Cruz on the second ballot.

 

[BloodRider]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I'm experiencing a similar fear. I think it's going to take more than Fez's statement that folks would rather eat glass than vote for him. They're going to have to hate enough enough to vote for the most viable opponent who faces him, regardless as to how distasteful that may be for them.

But the people who voted for Bernie are (for the most part) not the people who will turn out and vote against Trump.  This race is not about the independants, it is about turning out your base.  And whoever runs against Trump is going to turn out most of the Democratic base, meanwhile Trumps supposed base is going to sit at home.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Or stay home.  There is the third choice.  Sit-out, none of the above and I could see plenty of people falling in that category.

But I think that could very well lead to a Trump victory. I wouldn't risk it.

[Sullen]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sure there is. Rely on the fact that Trump is deeply, deeply unpopular outside of the Republican party (and inside parts of it as well) and that there are huge numbers of people who would rather eat glass than vote for him. Simply highlight over and over everything he's said and his supporters have said.

If I recall correctly, a good deal of his support comes from independents and old Democrats though. Him antagonizing "loyal" GOP voters is true though, and the fear of a Trump presidency will most likely cause a high voter turnout.

Highlighting his and his supporters' idiocies is what has been done since the beginning of his campaign, and it only helps Trump pick up more and more steam. You can't win against Trump by attacking him, his supporters simply don't care, their mind is already made. If you want to take him out, you need to focus on yourself, bolster the morale of your own supporters, motivate them to go vote.

[Guy Kilmore]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But I think that could very well lead to a Trump victory. I wouldn't risk it.

How so?  I read some of the similar things as Fez, Trump isn't brining new people to the polls, just getting more republicans to the primaries; his unfavorables within his own party outweigh that of Clinton in the Democratic Party.  I'm just not seeing that.

Unless we are talking the voter suppression and such.  

[BloodRider]

God, I feel like I am swimming upstream here, but if you are seriously worried about Trump winning over Clinton, that's actually great.  Remember that come early November.  But if you find it is keeping you up at night, I strongly recommend doing some reading over at 538 and Gallup.  Poll analysis is not an exact Science, to be sure, but that doesn't mean any talking head with an opinion is communicating ideas of any value. Both those guys know how to do forecast modeling, and have a much better idea of how things will play out in the general.

PRO TIP: Comparing Trumps rise in a FPTP 9 way race to how he will do in the general, is a fools errand.  In effect, you are using the wrong damn model.

[Ice Queen]

10 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Or stay home.  There is the third choice.  Sit-out, none of the above and I could see plenty of people falling in that category.

I stayed home in 2000 with Bush/Gore because I couldn't stomach either of them. I won't make that mistake again. I will vote for whoever the Dems nominate. Trump would be an unmitigated disaster and we can't allow him within spitting distance of the Resolute Desk. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

28 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sure there is. Rely on the fact that Trump is deeply, deeply unpopular outside of the Republican party (and inside parts of it as well) and that there are huge numbers of people who would rather eat glass than vote for him. Simply highlight over and over everything he's said and his supporters have said.

He could win, in the same sense that an undetected meteor could hit the Earth next month, but its incredibly unlikely. He is by far the weakest general election matchup Republicans could nominate and, regardless of whether there are mass Republican defections/third-party voters/staying at home I expect Clinton to easily beat him.

I wouldn't be so sure. There seems to be at least some people who are undecided between him and Sanders, and he might have appeal to working class white Democrats.

The chances of him being elected are tiny, but then so were the chances of him becoming nominee. We sort of have to throw out everything we knew about politics when we're talking about Trump. I mean four years ago, he was laughed out of the Republican primary.

And that's not even taking into account the chance of a major terrorist attack before the election.

Cruz has a higher floor since he won't divide the Republican party, but he has almost zero appeal to swing voters or fence leaning Democrats. He won't get the Republican establishment campaigning hard for him (they'll probably make a token gesture), and he's definitely someone almost all Democrats will hate.

Trump is Outside Context Problem. Cruz is just a normal Republican, but shittier.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

How so?  I read some of the similar things as Fez, Trump isn't brining new people to the polls, just getting more republicans to the primaries; his unfavorables within his own party outweigh that of Clinton in the Democratic Party.  I'm just not seeing that.

Unless we are talking the voter suppression and such.  

I hope you guys are right, I just think it's a nightmare that this guy is even in a position to possibly win. No one thought he could win the GOP nomination. No one thinks he could possibly win the General despite all the momentum he seems to have. 

[Guy Kilmore]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I hope you guys are right, I just think it's a nightmare that this guy is even in a position to possibly win. No one thought he could win the GOP nomination. No one thinks he could possibly win the General despite all the momentum he seems to have. 

I picked Trump to win the nomination in the office pool, so I'm looking good to win $50

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, Sullen said:

If I recall correctly, a good deal of his support comes from independents and old Democrats though. Him antagonizing "loyal" GOP voters is true though, and the fear of a Trump presidency will most likely cause a high voter turnout.

Highlighting his and his supporters' idiocies is what has been done since the beginning of his campaign, and it only helps Trump pick up more and more steam. You can't win against Trump by attacking him, his supporters simply don't care, their mind is already made. If you want to take him out, you need to focus on yourself, bolster the morale of your own supporters, motivate them to go vote.

It has helped because his supporters and some other Republicans love that stuff. But Democrats and most independents hate it (the Democrats who have liked it are the Reagan Democrats that haven't voted for Democratic candidates in decades anyway), and Clinton will never try to peel off his supporters, its about keeping and boosting turnout among everyone else. A mix of hope and fear is the best way to motivate voters. And highlighting what Trump says causes enormous fear in everyone other than 45% or so of Republican primary voters. Some of the other Republicans will fall in line, but...

Fear will keep the swingy Democrats in line. Fear of the alternative.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I wouldn't be so sure. There seems to be at least some people who are undecided between him and Sanders, and he might have appeal to working class white Democrats.

The chances of him being elected are tiny, but then so were the chances of him becoming nominee. We sort of have to throw out everything we knew about politics when we're talking about Trump. I mean four years ago, he was laughed out of the Republican primary.

And that's not even taking into account the chance of a major terrorist attack before the election.

Cruz has a higher floor since he won't divide the Republican party, but he has almost zero appeal to swing voters or fence leaning Democrats. He won't get the Republican establishment campaigning hard for him (they'll probably make a token gesture), and he's definitely someone almost all Democrats will hate.

Trump is Outside Context Problem. Cruz is just a normal Republican, but shittier.

I agree, and this is why I've been saying that facing Cruz would be more desirable. He has absolutely zero cross over appeal and presents no threat to defeating a Democrat. Trump is a total wild card, and while I think he would get destroyed in the general, there is still a possibility that he surprises everyone.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Trump is Outside Context Problem. Cruz is just a normal Republican, but shittier.

That more or less encapsulates my fear. You have to throw out the rulebook with this guy. He stands out in front of his people and tells very provable lies. His little infomercial the other night with all "his" products is a great example. HE OWNS NONE OF THOSE COMPANIES! Trump steaks is defunct. You can't fucking buy one. And it just doesn't matter to his supporters. It's fucking crazy, cult of personality type shit, and I'm not sure how you attack it. 

 Couple that with a lack of enthusiasm among the base for Hillary, and I can see the possibility (regardless of how remote it might be) that he can squeak out a win. It's probably an irrational fear, but this whole election has been extremely irrational.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Remember, Trump starred on WWE and was the victim of the Stone Cold Stunner.

 

That was a mediocre effort. Stewart sold Cena's move much better.

[Shryke]

37 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fez,

What makes me uncomfortable is that people have been saying that about Trumps chances at every step on the way.  He keeps winning.  What if the people showing up to vote for Trump are outside normal models and screwing up normal predictions?  I fear he can win.

The problem with that reasoning Scot is that it ignores why the initial predictions from some people were wrong. And that's where the actual details are. It's kinda like saying the weatherman can't be believed when he tells you an apple dropped from your hand will fall to the ground because, hey, he predicted it would rain today last week and he was wrong then, so why should I believe him now?

Fundamentally, and leaving out the finer points, people kept thinking Trump would fail in the primary because they kept expecting his lead to disappear. They looked at the polling and said "this can't continue". Except it did.

When people talk about the general they are doing the opposite. They are looking at the polling and saying "This is unlikely to change so he's gonna lose" and they are correct in that it is unlikely to change.