US Politics - Primary Numbers

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, Raja said:

I think in a field that has been so far fairly large, it is easy to get away with stuff like that - some issues with candidates still pass through all the noise - like Buttigieg's clusterfuck with his police department & Harris' record - but some don't.

Another good example is Buttigieg's strange health plan. Like, it's ridiculous how bananas some components of his health plan are

Oh c'mon, if you don't WANT M4a or can't sign up for whatever reason you just pay a measly 7k for not having healthcare.  Wonder who this will affect most...

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

if you promise to bring snacks at the Gulag if Soviet adoring Bernie wins.

You'll get kale and plant-based meats at best and you'll like it damnit!

This entire notion that anybody participating in the criminal justice system is thus inextricably associated with the systemic/institutional racism therein is just...so fucking stupid.  Way to disqualify and narrow so much of the potential candidate pool that are, generally, well-meaning officials that actually have a good idea of and are qualified to navigate the legislative process.  Or, ya know, lawmaking.  It boils down to punishing anyone that has political ambitions.  That has always been the most common path, and when doing so you're expected to conform to the - yes racis and sexist - system, particularly since the 80s anyone thinking of running for office cannot appear "soft on crime."  Especially for women and/or minorities, it really pisses me off.  They've worked their ass off their entire lives because they have to be better than white males to get a real shot, and then now we're just like "nope, shouldn't have done what society was telling you you needed to do to get this opportunity?"  Just, ugh.

[Ghjhero]

One of the ironies of Dems winning over the suburbs is that it is helping to dilute the voice of the progressives/left. This may not matter in the short run if the moderate lane continues to be split and allows Bernie to benefit, but the increased turnout doesn’t appear to correlate with a hard push to the left. 

 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

 

I can’t access the Nation article.  Do you have raw numbers for the surge?   I’d been seeing the breakdown for 18-35 in previous reporting, which did not show a surge for him, but rather a modest increase.  I don’t doubt that focusing on 18-25 shows a higher gain for him, though I suspect the original numbers were exceedingly low for that demographic.  I also think that this range is precisely the demographic who’d have the fewest challenges on average participating in the caucus format, in terms of physical energy, as well as work and family commitments.

I of course agree that he’s looking increasingly likely to get the nom with a plurality, but he just keeps looking like a weaker and weaker candidate to me.  Going from 23 points ahead in NH in 2016 to less than 2 points over nobody Buttigieg doesn’t strike me as a position of strength.  Pete and Amy are in essentially the same lane, which beats Sanders about 45 to 25, even if you assume best case scenario for Sanders that consolidation of all others would be a wash between the two lanes.   Idk if I’m missing something, but I’m seeing these two primary results as more of an indictment of Sanders’ general electability than evidence of any kind of widespread desire for him in office.  

If Klobuchar is actually happening, I tend to think she has the best electability argument of the pack, given her extremely wide winning margins.   If Warren’s finished, I’m moving to Pete or Amy, depending on which is still in and looking strongest against Sanders by the time I vote.

None of the moderates have incentive to drop out, however, which means that Sanders could very likely keep winning. And the vote will be split even further when Bloomberg enters the race.

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Folks, Trump is not going to refuse to leave. He's a physical coward. He will not run the risk of a physical confrontation. The thought is simply not compatible with anything we know about ol' Bone Spurs. He may rail and encourage others to risk *their* necks, but he'll leave the building meekly when the time comes.

I posted it before but there is an article from a Canadian concert promoter facing down Trump and a collection of Trump thugs after a Rolling Stones concert. And yes Trump backed down. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

None of the moderates have incentive to drop out, however, which means that Sanders could very likely keep winning. And the vote will be split even further when Bloomberg enters the race.

Which in turn could lead to no real winner with Sanders having a weak plurality. Then what the hell do we do? I mean other than drink….  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

One of the ironies of Dems winning over the suburbs is that it is helping to dilute the voice of the progressives/left. This may not matter in the short run if the moderate lane continues to be split and allows Bernie to benefit, but the increased turnout doesn’t appear to correlate with a hard push to the left. 

 

At the crux of Bernie’s argument is that he’ll create a revolution and bring in a lot of new voters. All evidence suggests there’s no there there, and that’s why the pragmatists fear he’ll sink a lot of down ballot tickets in a redistricting election.

Smart, right?

[Paladin of Ice]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Precisely.  This is what I'm railing about to my friends and family who I would call "reluctant Trump" supporters.  I'm asking them what it will actually take for this horrible human being to do before you will withdraw your "reluctant support"?  Hell, my Father who I love and respect was attempting to claim that Trump's tweet about the Stone sentencing was the same thing as a private citizen expressing their opinion.  I let him know in no uncertain terms that private citizens don't control employment and policy at the DOJ.  Private citizens aren't talking about the possibility of pardoning people who happen to be allies of Trump.  

It just makes my blood boil to see rational people offering apologia for this horrible man.

Scot, I'm sure you've been through these lines of argument before, but it is a good thing to remind people that Trump has declared his tweets to be official proclamations and declarations, including just last month when he was saying that his tweets counted as official notice to Congress about potentially going to war with Iran. Given that he's said that, his twitter literally cannot be assumed to be just his private opinion, as he's said it counts as official words of the president. Therefore how can we not treat it as his official words, unless we're supposed to wave a wand and say that we know which of his tweets are official statements and acts, and which aren't? I mean, if Obama had filled out an official order to the military giving them unconstitutional orders, then without retracting it with then sent out a contradicting order through the same method, how are we supposed to know what's the official will of the president?

It's also worth reminding people that Trump and Fox News tried to claim that Bill Clinton talking to Loretta Lynch by an airplane for a few minutes was a massive scandal where he was conspiring with her to not push charges against or investigate Hillary's emails further. Yet somehow a whole batch of communications through what Trump himself has said is an official method of presidential communication where he has said multiple times that a political ally found guilty of lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses should be given a lighter sentence, and used it as a forum to harshly criticize the judge and prosecutors involved in the case against his political ally?

I dunno. If say, Obama had rattled off half a dozen presidential memos or press sessions within three hours criticizing the judges and prosecutors in a trial of a Democratic political operative... I think the Republican world would find plenty to be furious about. So do they just want to openly admit that the rules are different for Republicans and especially Trump?

Alas, I think the key detail is that despite claims to the contrary, they aren't actually "reluctant supporters" of Trump. They love themselves some Trump, the only problems is that the way he does things is so obviously wrong, unpresidential, or corrupt that it makes their conscience say "This sounds like something the bad guy would do." But they identify with and like Trump, so he can't be the bad guy! If he were, they'd be bad guys too! And they know they're not bad guys, so...

I can definitely sympathize with you on the issue of dads though. My dad was used to always be a Chamber of Commerce, economically conservative but otherwise open minded Republican until he fell down the rabbit hole of right wing media in the 2000s and hasn't been the same since. Still, I wanted to believe that he was the guy who used to talk to me about respecting and protecting the environment, who rolled his eyes when his old friends acted racist, who genuinely delighted in learning traditions and languages and phrases from all over the world. We've got an unspoken agreement not to talk politics much, and I used to think "Hey, there are a few Republicans that see what Trump is, maybe he's one of them. This has got to be too much for him to take."

Then one day he answered the door in a Trump shirt, started saying crap like "If you want to get ahead in this country, learn to use the phrase 'No hablo engles'" or that environmentalists just really want all of humanity to go back to living in caves. And I can't square the man who still tries to do so much to help his community  and laughs with glee while Trump does his best to tear the country apart if it doesn't mold itself to his greedy, hateful whims.

[illrede]

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

You'll get kale and plant-based meats at best and you'll like it damnit!

This entire notion that anybody participating in the criminal justice system is thus inextricably associated with the systemic/institutional racism therein is just...so fucking stupid.  Way to disqualify and narrow so much of the potential candidate pool that are, generally, well-meaning officials that actually have a good idea of and are qualified to navigate the legislative process.  Or, ya know, lawmaking.  It boils down to punishing anyone that has political ambitions.  That has always been the most common path, and when doing so you're expected to conform to the - yes racis and sexist - system, particularly since the 80s anyone thinking of running for office cannot appear "soft on crime."  Especially for women and/or minorities, it really pisses me off.  They've worked their ass off their entire lives because they have to be better than white males to get a real shot, and then now we're just like "nope, shouldn't have done what society was telling you you needed to do to get this opportunity?"  Just, ugh.

 

Getting a political career from the starting point of being a prosecutor means people stereotype your rise in politics as "get convictions, win prizes". In recent judicial history, prosecutors are advantaged (not their fault, very much the voters' fault, democracy worked and the people got what they wanted- good and hard. Still happened.). Bringing about a modern political career from the starting position of being a prosecutor gives the stereotype of your rise in politics being "get (advantaged) convictions, win prizes". I don't see how it can be avoided.

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

 

I'm almost surprised they don't just come straight out and name what they think their role is - Trump's SS

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm almost surprised they don't just come straight out and name what they think their role is - Trump's SS

This is how he is not physically removed, unless the army is called in.  Never say he doesn't plan ahead.

 

 

[Ghjhero]

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

At the crux of Bernie’s argument is that he’ll create a revolution and bring in a lot of new voters. All evidence suggests there’s no there there, and that’s why the pragmatists fear he’ll sink a lot of down ballot tickets in a redistricting election.

Smart, right?

Yeah I think it’s a legitimate fear, I’m also wondering how to square it with the fact that Bernie is probably the only Dem with a true following and that anecdotally seems to be a good indicator of who wins the election. Risky business for the Dems, but I’d hold my breath and take a risk with him if I were them. 

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Which in turn could lead to no real winner with Sanders having a weak plurality. Then what the hell do we do? I mean other than drink….  

At that point it'll be time to break out the gravity bong, tons of 'shrooms and Crisco.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

Yeah I think it’s a legitimate fear, I’m also wondering how to square it with the fact that Bernie is probably the only Dem with a true following and that anecdotally seems to be a good indicator of who wins the election. Risky business for the Dems, but I’d hold my breath and take a risk with him if I were them. 

I think 2016 over exaggerated his following. He's gotten about a quarter of the vote in IA and NH and I think that's about what his following is. That's nothing to scoff at, but I don't think that will be enough to get him to the convention as the nominee because I can't see him expanding on that much past absorbing liberal Warren supporters. 

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

At that point it'll be time to break out the gravity bong, tons of 'shrooms and Crisco.

Crisco?  

[Ghjhero]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think 2016 over exaggerated his following. He's gotten about a quarter of the vote in IA and NH and I think that's about what his following is. That's nothing to scoff at, but I don't think that will be enough to get him to the convention as the nominee because I can't see him expanding on that much past absorbing liberal Warren supporters. 

That could be true, however, it may not matter. He’s currently leading in the RCP average. Trump won the nomination with only a plurality of the vote. With a larger field that has the potential of remaining so deep into the primary season Sanders can keep gathering a plurality of delegates without having to expand his base. If the moderates coalesce around one person then it’s a different story, but it would have to be soon. 

[Jace, Extat]

Did those kids ever get out of the cages? 

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

That could be true, however, it may not matter. He’s currently leading in the RCP average. Trump won the nomination with only a plurality of the vote. With a larger field that has the potential of remaining so deep into the primary season Sanders can keep gathering a plurality of delegates without having to expand his base. If the moderates coalesce around one person then it’s a different story, but it would have to be soon. 

Comparing this to the GOP isn't helpful. Trump didn't get a majority until much later in the contest, but he built up a massive lead in delegates due to their winner-take-all system. If they had used proportional delegates in those races it wouldn't have been decided until perhaps the actual convention or until people dropped out entirely. Hell, Rubio would have been viable for a crazy long time under that system. 

It really really depends a lot on super Tuesday. A third of all the delegates will be awarded by that time, and that could result in basically an insurmountable lead for someone depending on what they win and by how much. Again, it's hard to build a big lead in the system the dems have, but once you do build that lead it is virtually impossible to catch up. This, IMO, was one of the more infuriating things about Sanders staying in for as long as he did - while he wasn't mathematically eliminated, he was effectively eliminated when he got crushed in Super Tuesday last time. 

But if 3 candidates have like a 20-25% delegate win each, even Sanders having 30% isn't enough to take a crazy lead, and more importantly it isn't enough to kill the other candidates.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump didn't get a majority until much later in the contest, but he built up a massive lead in delegates due to their winner-take-all system.

He would have just as easily won if they had more of a proportional system, because he still had a clear lead.  This notion that either party would try to prevent the clear winner - even if it is technically just a plurality - of their own primary process is entirely without foundation in the history of primary contests since they've been nationalized.  First, it's very unlikely to ever happen.  Second, either party is simply not going to do that.  Because it's self-defeating.

[Ice Queen]

3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

This whole topic is absurd.  But I wouldn't recommend laying that responsibility at the feet of the Secret Service.  That would be too reminiscent of the Praetorian Guard.  Regardless, let's someone make a deal with me, if Trump seizes power for a third term, I'll bring all you guys care packages at the internment camps, if you promise to bring snacks at the Gulag if Soviet adoring Bernie wins.

You do realize that when Trump says he's not leaving and drops anvil sized hints about 3rd terms, and when Pence blatantly says that Pelosi may well be the last Speaker of the House for a very long time...they're not kidding? You do know that, right?

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

He would have just as easily won if they had more of a proportional system, because he still had a clear lead.  This notion that either party would try to prevent the clear winner - even if it is technically just a plurality - of their own primary process is entirely without foundation in the history of primary contests since they've been nationalized.  First, it's very unlikely to ever happen.  Second, either party is simply not going to do that.  Because it's self-defeating.

I'm sorry, did you actually accuse the Democratic party of not being self-defeating?