US Election: To NY and Beyond

[davos]

carry on

[BloodRider]

I am not sure how I would feel if Sanders were running as an Independent.  Especially if Trump were not doing the same.

[Weeping Sore]

2 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

I am not sure how I would feel if Sanders were running as an Independent.  Especially if Trump were not doing the same.

You mean if he had been running as an independent from the beginning or in the General after losing the Democratic nomination? In the former situation he never would have had the platform to get his message out and he would be polling at a tiny fraction of where he is now. He's not going to do the latter as he wouldn't want to be a spoiler that gets a Trump or Cruz elected president.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

9 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

You mean if he had been running as an independent from the beginning or in the General after losing the Democratic nomination? In the former situation he never would have had the platform to get his message out and he would be polling at a tiny fraction of where he is now. He's not going to do the latter as he wouldn't want to be a spoiler that gets a Trump or Cruz elected president.

Which is my point.  His first act as a candidate was to compromise his ideals in order to get elected.

[BloodRider]

21 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

You mean if he had been running as an independent from the beginning or in the General after losing the Democratic nomination? In the former situation he never would have had the platform to get his message out and he would be polling at a tiny fraction of where he is now. He's not going to do the latter as he wouldn't want to be a spoiler that gets a Trump or Cruz elected president.

Yeah, I guess that's true.

[Altherion]

41 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

You mean if he had been running as an independent from the beginning or in the General after losing the Democratic nomination? In the former situation he never would have had the platform to get his message out and he would be polling at a tiny fraction of where he is now.

How do you know? It's not like the media was all over his campaign simply because he announced that he was running as a Democrat. Nobody paid attention to him until it became clear that he was a non-trivial challenger to Clinton. He could have put the same resources into an independent run and gotten a similar result.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

How do you know? It's not like the media was all over his campaign simply because he announced that he was running as a Democrat. Nobody paid attention to him until it became clear that he was a non-trivial challenger to Clinton. He could have put the same resources into an independent run and gotten a similar result.

Altherion,

Probably not though.  Putting a (D) or and (R) next to your name helps get recognition and coverage by the media.  Party membership shouldn't matter but it does because people do not look at (I)'s or third party candidates as real candidates.

[lokisnow]

42 minutes ago, Altherion said:

How do you know? It's not like the media was all over his campaign simply because he announced that he was running as a Democrat. Nobody paid attention to him until it became clear that he was a non-trivial challenger to Clinton. He could have put the same resources into an independent run and gotten a similar result.

Sanders's candidacy and his success therein is a singular event in the primary era (post 68) of American presidential politics. The closest comparison is Reagan in 1976, and that's not a great fit, but it fits better than any of the other dozen options

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanderss-uphill-battle/478698/

And you can't say simply an investment of resources in an independent run would yield the same outcome as the investment of resources in the democrat primary because there is not in existence an independent primary. If he were putting the same resources into an independent run that would be for the general election not a primary, Sanders would not even be a declared candidate for the presidency at this exact point in time, April 18, 2016, so it is impossible he would have had the same or even a similar result. 

[Altherion]

50 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

Probably not though.  Putting a (D) or and (R) next to your name helps get recognition and coverage by the media.  Party membership shouldn't matter but it does because people do not look at (I)'s or third party candidates as real candidates.

But that's the thing: he was mostly ignored by the media until he already had a substantial following. I'm not sure that he would have been unable to attain such a following independently of the primary.

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

If he were putting the same resources into an independent run that would be for the general election not a primary, Sanders would not even be a declared candidate for the presidency at this exact point in time, April 18, 2016, so it is impossible he would have had the same or even a similar result.

He would have to be a declared candidate by this point or miss out on being on the ballot in multiple states.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

Probably not though.  Putting a (D) or and (R) next to your name helps get recognition and coverage by the media.  Party membership shouldn't matter but it does because people do not look at (I)'s or third party candidates as real candidates.

Why shouldn't party membership matter? The President is not the be all and end all of the US national government and so party affiliation tells you who they will be working with in Congress and a vague idea of where there positions lie. Especially these days.

[lokisnow]

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

But that's the thing: he was mostly ignored by the media until he already had a substantial following. I'm not sure that he would have been unable to attain such a following independently of the primary.

He would have to be a declared candidate by this point or miss out on being on the ballot in multiple states.

nope, you're confusing general election ballots with primary ballot deadlines. gen election ballot deadlines are over the summer.

[Bonesy]

7 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Which is my point.  His first act as a candidate was to compromise his ideals in order to get elected.

Which is better than no chance at all to push forward his ideals if elected how?

This is a near-sighted view of the reality of a two party system.

[Kalbear]

Well, this sucks for New York voters. Basically a whole bunch of people who thought that they didn't need to register as Democrat back in October and now hate that sooooo much are going to make the volunteers' lives hell because reasons. 

Quote

 

Zach Handler, a 29-year-old actor who lives in the East Village, is one of the shut-out independents who is considering showing up at the polls to protest the rules.

He’s a progressive who favors Sanders but didn’t know about the deadline to switch his party affiliation until it had passed.

“As a direct action, I’d love to just go and have the awkward moment with the poll worker and make them explain to me why I can’t vote even though I’m a registered voter and taxpayer,” Handler told The Post.

 

Dude, you've been there for 10 years and apparently never once voted in a primary. Sorry you didn't know about the deadline, but it's been this way for something like 50 years now. You could probably have figured it out any time before now if you had at all cared.

And on a side note, this is something that future Sandersesque politicians will keep track of -  that if they want to make a play, they'll need to get out the registration of people early. 

Quote

“No one should have to join a party to exercise their right to vote,” he added. “We’re a democracy.”

Except, ya know, you kind of should have to join a party to vote for said party, right? It doesn't make a lot of sense to be affiliated with no party but think that you should have a say in who should win it. You get your vote in the general election. This isn't March Madness. 

ETA: DailyKos has some more snark on this.

Quote

 

So it’s a closed primary in New York and you missed a deadline. That sucks. Maybe you never got around to it. Maybe you were too uninformed to know the rules. The truth is, if you had called your local party office before the deadline, we would have helped you register.

Or maybe you registered but you chose to remain independent. Well, then you chosenot to participate in our primary in New York. So STFU about your rights.

 

 

[Kalbear]

On to New York!

Demographically Clinton is predicted to win +12 - 56/44. Polling has been anywhere from +10 to +17 in the last week. Per 538, Clinton has a 99% chance of winning with a predicted win of +15 (57-41)

For Sanders to stay on his demographic targets, he needs to win New York 55-45 or better.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

You know, as someone who does not what to be affiliated, I do think I should have a right to make a choice in the nominee for one of the only two people who can feasibly be elected in our system. Now, I did register dem so I could vote in our caucus for Bernie, but I still feel like shit for doing it. I am now a "registered democrat" which is bullshit, because I'm not a democrat nor will I ever be one. But I had to pretend to be one so I could take part in the voting process. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

You know, as someone who does not what to be affiliated, I do think I should have a right to make a choice in the nominee for one of the only two people who can feasibly be elected in our system. Now, I did register dem so I could vote in our caucus for Bernie, but I still feel like shit for doing it. I am now a "registered democrat" which is bullshit, because I'm not a democrat nor will I ever be one. But I had to pretend to be one so I could take part in the voting process. 

Why should you get to vote for who the democrats choose if you don't want to be affiliated with democrats and feel like shit for being registered as one? Again, this is a group that you openly loathe and don't want any part of - why would they want your vote? 

Do you feel like you should be able to vote in PTA meetings if you don't have kids there?Maybe you should get to vote on the board of directors for Apple even though you don't own any voting stock. because you really like Apple products?

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

You know, as someone who does not what to be affiliated, I do think I should have a right to make a choice in the nominee for one of the only two people who can feasibly be elected in our system.

That's why, presumably.

I get what Simon is saying here (and Scot was sort of alluding to it before) in that there's a danger and a feeling that the primary season is becoming de facto the first round of the Presidential election, with the actual vote being effectively a runoff. (Although there's actually an argument that in a 'proper' runoff system, it would likely be Sanders vs Clinton in the final round, based on the number of votes accrued so far.)

(ETA - apologies, on further checking I see Trump would actually be second after Clinton. But not by much. And the figures are of course wonky for various reasons, including caucuses and closed primaries.)

So long as that's true, I can see how independents feel and sympathise with it. But they do need to be aware of the local rules and follow them. It sucks, but it's a fact.

[ThinkerX]

Spoiler

 

The General Election as a runoff.   And in this case, a runoff between candidates with very high unfavorable ratings.  Then there is the whole 'the Party decides' which is sort of shining through on both groups.

 

One has to wonder where this ends.  General elections with only ridiculously small numbers of voters allowed to participate, and then only if they can prove party affiliation?  Maybe the party leadership screening party members?  'Hm....you've got some Facebook comments that reflect poorly on our policies.  You're out.'

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Altherion said:

How do you know? It's not like the media was all over his campaign simply because he announced that he was running as a Democrat. Nobody paid attention to him until it became clear that he was a non-trivial challenger to Clinton. He could have put the same resources into an independent run and gotten a similar result.

No he wouldn't.

Voting for Sanders in the primary is guilt-free. You're voting for your preferred candidate, and if he doesn't get the nomination, you can still vote for the eventual Democrat against the eventual Republican.

Voting for Sanders on an independent run invokes the ghost of Nader in 2000. There would be plenty of people who (correctly) would see a vote for a leftist independent as a vote for Trump or Cruz or whoever the Republican nominee is. So he would get far fewer votes (and would destroy his Senate career while he was at it).

[Shryke]

20 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

No he wouldn't.

Voting for Sanders in the primary is guilt-free. You're voting for your preferred candidate, and if he doesn't get the nomination, you can still vote for the eventual Democrat against the eventual Republican.

Voting for Sanders on an independent run invokes the ghost of Nader in 2000. There would be plenty of people who (correctly) would see a vote for a leftist independent as a vote for Trump or Cruz or whoever the Republican nominee is. So he would get far fewer votes (and would destroy his Senate career while he was at it).

This is, afaik, why he's said he won't run as an Independent.