US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[Mauvka]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Since our current systems does impose cost, it maybe wiser to give outright grants of money rather than loans.

But even if we have a grant based system, we still need to find a way to contain the costs.

A per-student grant given to the school, not to the student, like we do with elementary education. The schools would not be allowed to bill any mandatory fees of attendance to the students. That should put a constraint on the costs very quickly, as any raises in tuition would have to be negotiated with the state govts.

[DMC]

It's quite amusing to me that my tongue-in-cheek, somewhat smartass reply to Kal on if Trump physically refuses to leave the WH has generated this much discussion...

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Like, how many Warren supporters have Sanders as their second or even third choice?  

Morning Consult has a quick and accessible way to track this.  According to their most recent update (I think), 35% have Sanders as their second choice, 22% have Biden, with Buttigieg and Klobuchar at 10% each.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's quite amusing to me that my tongue-in-cheek, somewhat smartass reply to Kal on if Trump physically refuses to leave the WH has generated this much discussion...

Morning Consult has a quick and accessible way to track this.  According to their most recent update (I think), 35% have Sanders as their second choice, 22% have Biden, with Buttigieg and Klobuchar at 10% each.

Thanks for the link.

Why wouldn't Warren wait around till Super Tuesday?  Lack of cash and low chance of coming back?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

We've been hearing a lot of how Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive vote, but I wonder how accurate that is.  Like, how many Warren supporters have Sanders as their second or even third choice?  

I think the data isn't clear--in the summer and fall, it was widely reported that they had very different voters who didn't have much crossover, but when Warren started sinking in the polls, Sanders definitely became a front runner. I don't know how much of a base they're splitting, but it feels like there is some truth to this belief.

If it is true, the media narrative that Warren promoting M4A tanked her has to be wrong. It's her walking back on it (if her supporters went to Bernie) that hurt her.

[butterbumps!]

Apologies if I’m missing something obvious, but regarding Sanders supposed unique viability, it looks likes a large majority of dems prefer the non-sanders lane, including those morning consult results above.   Even with assigning half of Warren’s support to Sanders per those linked numbers, I’m looking at something like Sanders at 35% with the Biden-Bloomberg-Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Steyer-1/2 Warren lane at like 61% or something.   
 

I’m struggling to see Sanders able to secure a majority of support within the party, and only able to win the nom if the liberal-moderates keep cannibalizing themselves to yield him a plurality.   Am I wrong to be worried about sending a candidate who couldn’t even secure majority party support?  I know the counter example is Trump, but dems don’t behave the same way as republicans about these things.  Am I looking at this from the wrong framework or something?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Why wouldn't Warren wait around till Super Tuesday?  Lack of cash and low chance of coming back?

Strategically, I think it'd work better for her to get out ASAP - that generally will lend you good will with everybody (which she'll probably want as she still has a political future) and if she doesn't perform in NH there's not much point to waiting til Super Tuesday.  This is just what I would do if I were her though, not like I'm basing this on any actual information.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Apologies if I’m missing something obvious, but regarding Sanders supposed unique viability, it looks likes a large majority of dems prefer the non-sanders lane, including those morning consult results above.   Even with assigning half of Warren’s support to Sanders per those linked numbers, I’m looking at something like Sanders at 35 with the Biden-Bloomberg-Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Steyer-1/2 Warren at like 61 or something.   
 

I’m struggling to see Sanders able to secure a majority of support within the party, and only able to win the nom if the liberal-moderates keep cannibalizing themselves to yield him a plurality.   Am I wrong to be worried about sending a candidate who couldn’t even secure majority party support?  I know the counter example is Trump, but dems don’t behave the same way as republicans about these things.  Am I looking at this from the wrong framework or something?

The thing is that none of the other candidates have what your asking for either.  If you look at the head to head against Trump Sanders is right there with Bloomberg and Biden.  And he has the highest favorability with Dem primary voters.

Eta: Sanders is the most popular 2nd choice for Biden supporters, although Bloomberg and Warren are very close too.  Even if Biden implodes it's not like they're all running to Buttigieg or Bloomberg.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Strategically, I think it'd work better for her to get out ASAP - that generally will lend you good will with everybody (which she'll probably want as she still has a political future) and if she doesn't perform in NH there's not much point to waiting til Super Tuesday.  This is just what I would do if I were her though, not like I'm basing this on any actual information.

Alternately if she has the cash and thinks it might be a contested convention having more delegates means more power to decide people and platform. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

I’m struggling to see Sanders able to secure a majority of support within the party, and only able to win the nom if the liberal-moderates keep cannibalizing themselves to yield him a plurality.

Yeah, I said this right after Iowa last week.  Sanders has a clear path at the nomination - if the non-Sanders vote continues to be split up by 3-4 candidates.  If someone can consolidate the anti-Sanders vote?  That's when he'll run into trouble.

[DMC]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Alternately if she has the cash and thinks it might be a contested convention having more delegates means more power to decide people and platform. 

The dream of contested conventions is for starry eyed political reporters and avid West Wing fans.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

The dream of contested conventions is for starry eyed political reporters and avid West Wing fans.

And this election. Especially given Biden and super Tuesday. 

[butterbumps!]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yeah, I said this right after Iowa last week.  Sanders has a clear path at the nomination - if the non-Sanders vote continues to be split up by 3-4 candidates.  If someone can consolidate the anti-Sanders vote?  That's when he'll run into trouble.

Would his inability to win over a majority of dem voters in the primary have any predictive value on the general?   Like does this bode poorly?   I’ve been seeing all these polls as a kind of verification that around 2/3 of dems really want someone who is not sanders.    I’m basically asking if I’m wrong to have this as one of the major things that stresses me out about this election.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

Would his inability to win over a majority of dem voters in the primary have any predictive value on the general?   Like does this bode poorly?   I’ve been seeing all these polls as a kind of verification that around 2/3 of dems really want someone who is not sanders.    I’m basically asking if I’m wrong to have this as one of the major things that stresses me out about this election.  

That depends entirely on how much they want Trump out of office.  If they think getting Trump out of office is more important than keeping Sanders out of the White House they vote for Sanders.  If they don't they stay home or vote third party.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And this election. Especially given Biden and super Tuesday. 

Yeah, things have looked like "this election" for the GOP primary literally the last three cycles.  It looked like it for 2004 and 2008 for the Dems as well.  At this point it just makes me chuckle when people say "this will be the one."

4 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Would his inability to win over a majority of dem voters in the primary have any predictive value on the general?

Definitely not an indicator you want but I don't think so.  Polarization has mitigated that.  Trump was deeply unpopular with a wide swath of the GOP electorate, until he wasn't.  The Dems are gonna be galvanized to beat Trump no matter who the nominee is.  In my book, there are plenty of more important reasons to worry about Sanders' electability.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That depends entirely on how much they want Trump out of office.  If they think getting Trump out of office is more important than keeping Sanders out of the White House they vote for Sanders.  If they don't they stay home or vote third party. 

That's not entirely an either/or.  Democratic voters can also donate money, volunteer, actively advocate with people they meet, etc.  If Sanders is the nominee, Sanders (and indeed, all anti-Trump voters) is going to need to either get those people engaged or hope that his smaller group of fervent supports is sufficient to make up the difference. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think Ormond is correct to look at the individualized circumstances before action is taken.  If violence hasn't arrisen in the wake of Trump refusing to accept his electoral defeat, or demanding a third term, using non-violent methods to remove him from the White House may be essential to prevent further violence in the wake of his expulsion from the White House.  

That said, I agree with you that it is likely that violence is already occuring if he's refusing to leave the White House.

Sure you can seek a non-violent solution if violence is not already occurring, but that seems extremely unlikely, and again, doing next to nothing is in effect accepting illegal behavior.

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's quite amusing to me that my tongue-in-cheek, somewhat smartass reply to Kal on if Trump physically refuses to leave the WH has generated this much discussion...

We’ve been talking about it for years here. Death, taxes, relitigating 2016, Philip Rivers down 7 with 60 seconds to go and the length of the field to drive and wondering what happens if Trump[ refuses to leave office. All of these things are certainties here.  

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We’ve been talking about it for years here.

Yeah but the discussion usually revolves around how Trump could or could not use institutional mechanisms to stay in office, which is an interesting hypothetical.  The hypothetical that he'll hole up in the oval like he's a kid building a fort out of cushions and bedsheets borders on the absurd.  Although I suppose he is a child.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

BTW, from where I'm sitting, I'm with Butterbumps in that I think a Sanders nomination* = 4 more years of Trump.

 

*I reserve my right to change my mind if he does get the nomination based on his VP pick.  Given his health issues and age, I think the VP pick is actually a huge factor in his case.

[Ran]

On second thought ... this is leading me back to Biden, not Sanders, being the best choice.

[Zorral]

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

On second thought ... this is leading me back to Biden, not Sanders, being the best choice.

But he came in at a way down fourth behind three others.  So, one says, so what?  It seems that voters are really impatient at this point with this vaunted center median that doesn't get anything done, doesn't change anything, when voters are desperate for change.  Of course, we'll see more clearly after some other primaries in some other locations that aren't low population, majority white elderly.