2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[kairparavel]

I've seen a few Bernie or bust supporters call for a Jill Stein write in.

All I can do is watch and read. I held off getting my citizenship for a few reasons, the results of this election cycle being one of them. And I don't just mean who becomes president but also ant fallout from a greater wedge between members of each faction. I'm not as well informed as I should be about where Sanders and Clinton stand on this historically as well as currently. I tire of the rabid nature in which opinions get passed around, over and over. And I do mean rabid, with more teeth bared and foaming at the mouth with each pass. And the one thing I will not forget, or forgive, is the gendered vitriol and pejorative launched at the female candidate by supposedly liberal and feminist supporters. I get that she's not likeable, done dubious things, etc etc but I've yet to see anyone refer to Trump as a cunt. You don't get to just walk away from that after the DNC.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

They're also known for marching that line right off a cliff, as they did with Bush and Iraq. Let's hope they are equally disciplined in 2016.

Oh come on TN. I put a Star Wars joke in there specifically for you and you cut it out.

SHAME!

[Maester Drew]

9 minutes ago, Notone said:

A message like, the primaries are part of the Democratic process and we respect, that Senator Sanders thinks he still has a way to the nomination, looks much better than: Senator Sanders is anything but defeated, enough with this madness in the name of the DNC. It's time to unite behind Hillary or you are responsible for a President Trump. 

This. Talking down to anyone would only drive them away, but being conciliatory would not. It's the case for Sanders supporters, trying to be condescending to them would do more harm then good.

26 minutes ago, Mexal said:

My only concern is whether Sanders voters, especially the hardcore ones, actually vote in the November election or decide to do something like write in Sanders name knowing it could help Trump win the election.

Only be concerned for those in the swing states. A woman in Oregon who writes in Bernie won't change the fact her state will still go to the Democrats, likewise a man in Kansas who decides to vote for Gary Johnson won't change the fact his state will still go to the Republicans.

It's in the swing states, that a persons vote can really change the outcome of the election.

 

So, if someone in a safe state decides to stick to his or her guns and writes in Bernie's name, let them. It won't change which column their state will ultimately be on.

[TrackerNeil]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh come on TN. I put a Star Wars joke in there specifically for you and you cut it out.

SHAME!

Come on...I do a weekly Star Trek podcast, for crying out loud. I know a reference to Tuskans when I see one.

[TrackerNeil]

23 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

And I do mean rabid, with more teeth bared and foaming at the mouth with each pass. And the one thing I will not forget, or forgive, is the gendered vitriol and pejorative launched at the female candidate by supposedly liberal and feminist supporters. I get that she's not likeable, done dubious things, etc etc but I've yet to see anyone refer to Trump as a cunt. You don't get to just walk away from that after the DNC.

I find that likability is like Yoda's cave on Dagobah; what you find there is what you bring with you.

(That one's for Tywin, et al. as a peace offering.)

[S John]

3 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

This. Talking down to anyone would only drive them away, but being conciliatory would not. It's the case for Sanders supporters, trying to be condescending to them would do more harm then good.

Only be concerned for those in the swing states. A woman in Oregon who writes in Bernie won't change the fact her state will still go to the Democrats, likewise a man in Kansas who decides to vote for Gary Johnson won't change the fact his state will still go to the Republicans.

It's in the swing states, that a persons vote can really change the outcome of the election.

 

So, if someone in a safe state decides to stick to his or her guns and writes in Bernie's name, let them. It won't change which column their state will ultimately be on.

This is pretty much how I look at it.  I could never bring myself to vote for Trump, but Clinton is not my favorite candidate by a long shot.  I live in Texas.  The Republican will win Texas no matter what I do, so I feel pretty safe with going for a 3rd party candidate and being able to say 'I didn't vote for either of those fuckers' since I don't really like either of the two main candidates.  

The last presidential election I was registered in Virginia where my vote really could matter.  If I still lived there I would probably find myself less-idealistic about the casting of my vote and would be more open to taking a 'lesser of two evils' approach.  I'd probably, very grudgingly, vote for Clinton if I still lived in Virginia.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I wouldn't be so sure, which states are safe and which are competitive this cycle, though. 

I think Trump has the potential to shake up the map quite a bit. I can bet on California being a lock for Democrats, not matter what. But apart from that? Trump has very succesfully tapped in that white anger (I am lacking a better word it), but at the same time he thoroughly burnt nearly all minority bridges behind him. I am really curious which states will fall. But again, that is 6 months down the road.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the Democrats are more divided than the Republicans at this exact moment in time. And it's well known that the Republicans are better at getting in line behind their candidate. They always ride single file to hide their numbers.

I don't think that this is true. There are a number of very, very obnoxious, noisy and stupid Sanders supporters who were never going to vote for any mainstream candidate making a lot of noise - and they happen to be delegates of Sanders. But the large majority of Sanders supporters are simply looking to the general at this point. You can see this in fundraising - Sanders fundraising has plummeted, he's laying people off in California and unable to fund ad buys there, and is doing other cost-saving measures. 

And again, Clinton has barely talked about Sanders in the last month at all. 

[Kalbear]

22 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Only be concerned for those in the swing states. A woman in Oregon who writes in Bernie won't change the fact her state will still go to the Democrats, likewise a man in Kansas who decides to vote for Gary Johnson won't change the fact his state will still go to the Republicans.

It's in the swing states, that a persons vote can really change the outcome of the election.

 

There is no such thing as a safe state with Trump in play. None.

One of the major lessons from this election is that the usual rules aren't applying in any reasonable way. The party decides? Nope! Funding matters most? Nope? Endorsements matter? Nope! Things like honesty and trustworthiness and likability matter most? Nope! 

This election more than any in the last 20 years will likely be nonpredictive compared to prior outcomes. 

So yeah, it's possible that the electorate will line up like it has in the past. Or...it's possible that there are so many folks who would vote for Trump who would not vote at all normally that he wins, and he wins in places that are typically democratic. Or it's possible he loses in a landslide. Really, Trump is the Mike Tyson of political candidates. I could write virtually any headline and it wouldn't be that surprising. 

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, Notone said:

They don't have to, at least not now. It's 6 months to the general election, right? For now they can be mad and angry, and campaign for Sanders and push his message forward. Let them. If the primary is officially over, they will fall in line behind Clinton. I can't imagine a single Sanders supporter from the younger generation want to see President Trump.

Here's how to imagine it.

Picture a person who is angry. Maybe they were part of the military or connected to the military, but they've been involved in major conflicts for the last 10-15 years of their life. They have a job, but they don't have a career. They have medical bills they need to take care of. The system has largely failed them, the promises made to them have failed. If they just go into the military they'll get a college education and be set! They'll be covered under VA! They'll be respected and loved! They served with honor and people wanted them there!

These are lies to them. 

Sanders comes along and they hear universal health care, helping veterans, stopping fights, and improving the economy. But more than that, they hear revolution. They don't want necessarily all those trappings; what they want, more than anything, is to punish the people who lied. Punish those who got rich and got better, but mostly punish those who told him (and yes, it's almost certainly a him) that he could live the American Dream. 

So Sanders is ideal. But Clinton - no, Clinton doesn't work. What has Clinton done for him? What has Clinton's friends done for him? Sure, Clinton supports women's rights but that doesn't matter to him. She has been a good advocate of LGBT rights, but again, nothing doing for him. Prison reform doesn't help him and he's probably of the opinion that a whole lot of those people should be locked up, anyway. Clinton, worst of all, is one of those liars. She was telling people that they could get a fair shake - and look what happened to him. It's not his fault that this happened, so it must be hers. 

But Trump? Trump is telling people like Clinton off. He's calling her a bitch, and that's what he wants to call her, too! He says America sucks right now, and this guy hears that loud and clearly because for him, America sucks right now. And Trump wants to bring it back to a place where it was awesome - where a guy like him could be on top. Okay, Trump also is blaming immigrants - but he's also blaming Muslims, and this guy has seen how bad those guys can be too. Trump also represents that revolution, and it's a bit different of a path but the same outcome - burn everything down and replace it with something better - and something that he's on top of.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that this is true. There are a number of very, very obnoxious, noisy and stupid Sanders supporters who were never going to vote for any mainstream candidate making a lot of noise - and they happen to be delegates of Sanders. But the large majority of Sanders supporters are simply looking to the general at this point. You can see this in fundraising - Sanders fundraising has plummeted, he's laying people off in California and unable to fund ad buys there, and is doing other cost-saving measures. 

And again, Clinton has barely talked about Sanders in the last month at all. 

I have to disagree. I haven't seen any data that suggests that Sanders supporters are moving towards a position of uniting with Clinton. In fact the exact opposite has been bearing out in the polls. That likely won't matter 6 months from now, but at this exact moment in time the Republican party is beginning to coalesce around Trump while the Democrats are still fighting out the primary. 

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump is telling people like Clinton off. He's calling her a bitch

What are the fictional betting lines that he actually calls her that in public?

29 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I find that likability is like Yoda's cave on Dagobah; what you find there is what you bring with you.

(That one's for Tywin, et al. as a peace offering.)

Offering accepted, Trekie.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And it will get worse before it gets better. This infighting is exactly why I said months ago that Sanders should drop out. I warned you guys that this would happen.

This is one of the most interesting questions of the general elections. Ordinarily, I would fully expect the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton in the general election -- it has happened pretty much every time (unless there's a third party run which Sanders is not going to do). However, this is exactly the type of reasoning that led practically every political analyst to discount Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination. There's a nice article here about the problems of using past elections as a guide to future ones (in one line: there are not enough of them and most of them are not similar enough to each other to use them together).

Many of the Sanders supporters appear to be quite angry, perhaps as angry as the Trump ones. Will most of them swallow this anger, bow down to the establishment and vote for Clinton? Will they vote for a third party candidate or write in Sanders? Or might they even go over to Trump?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Here's how to imagine it.

Picture a person who is angry. Maybe they were part of the military or connected to the military, but they've been involved in major conflicts for the last 10-15 years of their life. They have a job, but they don't have a career. They have medical bills they need to take care of. The system has largely failed them, the promises made to them have failed. If they just go into the military they'll get a college education and be set! They'll be covered under VA! They'll be respected and loved! They served with honor and people wanted them there!

These are lies to them. 

Sanders comes along and they hear universal health care, helping veterans, stopping fights, and improving the economy. But more than that, they hear revolution. They don't want necessarily all those trappings; what they want, more than anything, is to punish the people who lied. Punish those who got rich and got better, but mostly punish those who told him (and yes, it's almost certainly a him) that he could live the American Dream. 

So Sanders is ideal. But Clinton - no, Clinton doesn't work. What has Clinton done for him? What has Clinton's friends done for him? Sure, Clinton supports women's rights but that doesn't matter to him. She has been a good advocate of LGBT rights, but again, nothing doing for him. Prison reform doesn't help him and he's probably of the opinion that a whole lot of those people should be locked up, anyway. Clinton, worst of all, is one of those liars. She was telling people that they could get a fair shake - and look what happened to him. It's not his fault that this happened, so it must be hers. 

But Trump? Trump is telling people like Clinton off. He's calling her a bitch, and that's what he wants to call her, too! He says America sucks right now, and this guy hears that loud and clearly because for him, America sucks right now. And Trump wants to bring it back to a place where it was awesome - where a guy like him could be on top. Okay, Trump also is blaming immigrants - but he's also blaming Muslims, and this guy has seen how bad those guys can be too. Trump also represents that revolution, and it's a bit different of a path but the same outcome - burn everything down and replace it with something better - and something that he's on top of.

Possible. But I simply can't imagine Bernie has drawn sufficient angry military personnel to make that one work. Or more sophisticated: I think you are overestimating the base rate of that group (or I am underestimating it). From what I have seen/read Sanders has drawn in a lot of young people (that's votes Clinton needs/wants), blue collar whites with a union history (traditional Democratic voters, but I think they may very well be heading to Trump, at least in parts - no, to free trade.), and the (partly elderly) folk in the rural areas that simply do not like Clinton (I can also see those heading towards Trump).

I would think of Bernie's young support there is a good bunch who are idealistic or concerned over student loans. Which is both fine. The student loan crowd are not really addressed by either Trump or Clinton. So I don't see them in any conceivable reality going Trump. Same with the young crowd that supports Sanders for idealistic reasons. 

From your military personnel: well, I would think there's a good number of Hispanics atm serving or has served in the military. I am sure staff seargent Gutierrez loves to hear how Latinos are rapists and drug smugglers. So I imagine that would reduce the number of veterans for Trump quite a bit. And Trump has not posed as non-interventionist. Remember he would hit the IS so hard, they would not know what hit them.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

53 minutes ago, S John said:

This is pretty much how I look at it.  I could never bring myself to vote for Trump, but Clinton is not my favorite candidate by a long shot.  I live in Texas.  The Republican will win Texas no matter what I do, so I feel pretty safe with going for a 3rd party candidate and being able to say 'I didn't vote for either of those fuckers' since I don't really like either of the two main candidates.  

The last presidential election I was registered in Virginia where my vote really could matter.  If I still lived there I would probably find myself less-idealistic about the casting of my vote and would be more open to taking a 'lesser of two evils' approach.  I'd probably, very grudgingly, vote for Clinton if I still lived in Virginia.  

Just like you, I don't like Clinton or Trump, but since I'd rate, on a -100 to 100 scale, Clinton -10 and Trump -50, I'll very enthusiastically vote for Clinton. That's larger than the gap I had between Romney and Obama, and I happily voted for Obama. Though I did rate both of them positive.

[Swordfish]

5 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Honestly, there are some Sanders folks who've been claiming this since last October, so this is just the most recent chapter in a long series of novels.

I don't know why this is surprising, since this is the same people who are still claiming the election was stolen in 2000.

You knew they were a scorpion.  It's in their nature.  So it';s hard for anyone on the outside to be particularly sympathetic to this problem at this point.  The pigeons are coming home to roost.

 

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that this is true. There are a number of very, very obnoxious, noisy and stupid Sanders supporters who were never going to vote for any mainstream candidate making a lot of noise - and they happen to be delegates of Sanders. But the large majority of Sanders supporters are simply looking to the general at this point. You can see this in fundraising - Sanders fundraising has plummeted, he's laying people off in California and unable to fund ad buys there, and is doing other cost-saving measures. 

And again, Clinton has barely talked about Sanders in the last month at all. 

And you wonder why there would be any suggestion that the liberal left has become overly smug......

Voting for Clinton is supporting business as usual.  business as usual has given you a candidate that has a real possibility of losing to Donald Friggin Trump.

it's not hard to understand that there's a big problem there, and yet the regular water carriers are out in force beating the Hilary drum, and condescending to and outright insulting anyone who dares disagree with them.

From the outside, it's actually kind of amusing to watch.

 

 

 

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

So yeah, it's possible that the electorate will line up like it has in the past. Or...it's possible that there are so many folks who would vote for Trump who would not vote at all normally that he wins, and he wins in places that are typically democratic. Or it's possible he loses in a landslide. Really, Trump is the Mike Tyson of political candidates. I could write virtually any headline and it wouldn't be that surprising. 

There was a large republican worry that so many black voters would turn out-who never would turn out at all-in 2008 that Obama would flip solid republican states in the south-mostly georgia and north carolina.

Black turnout did increase, I believe it went from 62% turnout in 2004 to 65% turnout in 2008 (and 66% turnout in 2012), so I would say a three percent increase in white male turnout would be a possible median outcome, the likely variance for that 3% increase is probably a single standard deviation either way.

So let's say Trump increases white male turnout by 4%, nationally, without affecting white female turnout in any adverse or positive manner (sort of like how Obama's presence on the ballot increased black turnout independently of white turnout), while unlikely, this would mean an increase in overall white turnout of 2% relative to 2012 numbers from 64.1% to 66.1% and increases the republican share of the overall white vote from 60.2% to 62.2%.

That level of increase would mean millions of non-regular voters 4,800,000 new republican Trump voters to be precise being brought to the election by trump and would be an insufficient gain to win the electoral college.

So 4.8 million new white male republican voters are insufficient to shift the outcome of the election, so Trump has to do more than that while preventing other demographics from reacting to his candidacy.

Because say Trump gets 3% increase in white share and a 3% increase in white turnout. that's 6 million new white voters for him relative to 2012 and sufficient to flip the election, most likely.

But if he also causes latino turnout to increase 3% and increase democrat latino vote share by 3% his gains are offset and democrats still narrowly win the election, most likely, and even six million new republican voters couldn't swing the election.

play with this calculator and see for yourself.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

 

[mormont]

5 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

@Roose Boltons Pet Leech

Seriously though, 2016 is not 2000. Nader formally ran as a candidate in the General, but Sanders has made it clear that if he's not nominated, he won't run in the General

.@TrackerNeil

 

This is the bit I don't get.

You say you're going to write in a vote for Sanders. That's your choice, of course. But... you know who doesn't want you to do that?

Bernie Sanders.

Why else would he say he won't run against Clinton in the general? Clearly, because he doesn't want to suck votes away from the Democrat candidate, whoever that turns out to be (and he's always known it would be Clinton if it wasn't him). He understands this and is fully behind the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils.

So what's this write-in vote about? 'Screw you, Bernie, I'm voting for you anyway. You'll be President and like it!'

[TrackerNeil]

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

This is the bit I don't get.

You say you're going to write in a vote for Sanders. That's your choice, of course. But... you know who doesn't want you to do that?

Bernie Sanders.

Why else would he say he won't run against Clinton in the general? Clearly, because he doesn't want to suck votes away from the Democrat candidate, whoever that turns out to be (and he's always known it would be Clinton if it wasn't him). He understands this and is fully behind the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils.

So what's this write-in vote about? 'Screw you, Bernie, I'm voting for you anyway. You'll be President and like it!'

Clinton herself received this back in 2008, in the form of the PUMAs. Those folks did not care that Clinton herself endorsed Obama, which to my mind proves that their dedication wasn't rational but narcissistic and part of a cult of personality. For some this race is no longer about Sanders or his beliefs; it's about what they feel he represents. They don't really even hear that Sanders himself disagrees.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

Clinton herself received this back in 2008, in the form of the PUMAs. Those folks did not care that Clinton herself endorsed Obama, which to my mind proves that their dedication wasn't rational but narcissistic and part of a cult of personality. For some this race is no longer about Sanders or his beliefs; it's about what they feel he represents. They don't really even hear that Sanders himself disagrees.

Except that there is a significant difference between Sanders' vision for America and Clinton's vision for America that simply didn't exist in 2008. Clinton's vision for America was fundamentally the same as Obama's vision for America. 

A "protest vote" for Sanders in the general is an expression of support for his vision of America. Sanders is a sitting Senator who has a lot of practical considerations governing how he handles his candidacy's end game - he doesn't want to Trump to win, obviously, but he also doesn't want to get boxed out of his leadership positions in the Senate and frozen out of the Democratic caucus. His voters are not bound by most of these practical considerations. They can vote for whomever their conscience dictates.

Ironically, this is the exactly OPPOSITE of a "cult of personality."  If you are really a part of the "cult of personality" you do whatever your figure of adulation tells you to do, even if it contradicts what they've said before. The fact that Sanders voters might just vote for him even if he withdraws from the race and supports Hillary shows that they are not bound to uncritical worship of Sanders himself. They're willing to support his aspirations even when he himself has to bow to mundane political calculations. 

[Maester Drew]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

This is the bit I don't get.

You say you're going to write in a vote for Sanders. That's your choice, of course. But... you know who doesn't want you to do that?

Bernie Sanders.

Why else would he say he won't run against Clinton in the general? Clearly, because he doesn't want to suck votes away from the Democrat candidate, whoever that turns out to be (and he's always known it would be Clinton if it wasn't him). He understands this and is fully behind the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils.

So what's this write-in vote about? 'Screw you, Bernie, I'm voting for you anyway. You'll be President and like it!'

Because I agree with his beliefs. That's why I am most likely going to write him in. But, it's no longer absolute, I am willing to cast my vote for Hillary if she chooses a progressive VP (Warren would be preferable but I understand that it'd be better for her to be in the senate).