New Hampshire Primary

[overtone]

On the democratic side, I'm curious to see what happens in Nevada and South Carolina, specifically among black and latino voters. This population is clearly becoming more open to and aware of Sanders than at any time before, but I'm not yet convinced it is happening in large enough numbers

A couple of well known media figures and intellectuals - Killer Mike, Ta-Nehisi Coates, some others - have come down on Sanders's side.

 

The Clinton history of welfare "reform" and drug law enforcement and so forth, while not specifically originating with Hillary, is going to swing some black votes to Sanders as soon as he becomes familiar in his own right. Her close association with Israel won't help either (Sanders is Jewish, but not Zionist).

 

Hillary is at her peak of popularity now. The only question is how far she slides over the next month or so, and where, and among whom. She is not going to pick up any more black votes until after the primaries, when running against Trump or whomever - the question is how many she will lose. The longer it stretches out, the more she will lose. It's good for her that SC is coming up as soon as it is.

Edited February 11, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

The interview Bernie did with Killer Mike was kinda great. Here's a playlist, six parts, about 5 minutes each:

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by iNow

[imatfaal]

The interview Bernie did with Killer Mike was kinda great. Here's a playlist, six parts, about 5 minutes each:

...

 

Thanks - I hadn't seen him talk before. Damn but he is articulate, charismatic, and persuasive - the old white dude wasn't bad either

[neutrinosalad]

The interview Bernie did with Killer Mike was kinda great. Here's a playlist, six parts, about 5 minutes each:

 

 

iNow, this may come as a surprise given my recent commentary, but if Bernie Sanders ends up being the democrat's presidential nominee, I will vote for him.

[iNow]

I haven't yet decided who will receive my vote.

[imatfaal]

Anyone here gonna be voting in the Primaries (I follow US politics pretty faithfully for a brit - but I am still a bit hazy on who gets to vote in the state primaries) I can see from geographical labels that iNow might/does get votes on Super-Tuesday, as might/does Phi, yDoaps is way into May, which by then, might be a one-horse race, and I forget if Overtone has every mentioned a home state. Everyone else seems to be an interested foreign observer (maybe that comment should be part of the What is Wrong with America thread)

 

As far as I can tell Texas is an open-primary (an registered voter can vote in both Dem and Rep) and Colorado is closed caucus (only reg party members can vote in their respective party primary). I would not dream of asking who people will vote for - but I am curious if you guys will actually vote. But please feel free to say f off none of your business

 

I really do not know who I would vote for at present - Sanders is politically very close to me but I worry that he is unelectable whereas Clinton is almost as far as a Democrat can be from me but I worry that she might be unelectable. Hmm - really dilemma; Bernie's avowed left-wing policies which will mobilise huge power blocs against him or Hillary's idiopathic antipathy which is widespread across America.

 

On the Republican side - again I would be torn between voting for one of the complete nutters to firstly enjoy the entire unedifying spectacle of the Grand Old Party eating itself and secondly to clear the way for a democratic nominee in general e, or trying to vote for one of the more sensible (I guess only Kasich) so that the election could be a bit more grown up, or maybe finally bush to get him and his backers to carry on pissing away money (84 million so far acc wiki)

[iNow]

I will be voting in the primary next month, yes. So, too, will my wife.

[overtone]

My State will hold Party caucuses March first, which are non-binding platform-establishing Party bureaucratic shindigs, and Primary votes for Party ballot designation in August.

 

The caucuses I view as a get- together, see some people I haven't seen in a while, meet local candidates I don't know anything about, try to sneak a favorite initiative into the Party platform (One year a coordinated group of caucuses had the Democratic Party advocating for nude beaches in their official platform). I go if they don't conflict with my job.

 

I always vote in the Primary - nowhere does one's vote count for more. In my State the only restriction on one's Primary vote is that you have to choose one Party on the ballot, and vote within it. I tend to pick the Party with something at stake for me in one of the races - where there's no clear consensus candidate for a significant office, and I have a preference. Where I live the local pols are all Republican, so local offices with Party designation are essentially chosen in the Republican primary - that sways my ballot choice, sometimes. You don't want a nutcase for DA or Sheriff or tax assessor because his whole church made it to the primary.

Edited February 12, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

Anyone here gonna be voting in the Primaries (I follow US politics pretty faithfully for a brit - but I am still a bit hazy on who gets to vote in the state primaries) I can see from geographical labels that iNow might/does get votes on Super-Tuesday, as might/does Phi, yDoaps is way into May, which by then, might be a one-horse race, and I forget if Overtone has every mentioned a home state. Everyone else seems to be an interested foreign observer (maybe that comment should be part of the What is Wrong with America thread)

 

As far as I can tell Texas is an open-primary (an registered voter can vote in both Dem and Rep) and Colorado is closed caucus (only reg party members can vote in their respective party primary). I would not dream of asking who people will vote for - but I am curious if you guys will actually vote. But please feel free to say f off none of your business

 

I really do not know who I would vote for at present - Sanders is politically very close to me but I worry that he is unelectable whereas Clinton is almost as far as a Democrat can be from me but I worry that she might be unelectable. Hmm - really dilemma; Bernie's avowed left-wing policies which will mobilise huge power blocs against him or Hillary's idiopathic antipathy which is widespread across America.

 

On the Republican side - again I would be torn between voting for one of the complete nutters to firstly enjoy the entire unedifying spectacle of the Grand Old Party eating itself and secondly to clear the way for a democratic nominee in general e, or trying to vote for one of the more sensible (I guess only Kasich) so that the election could be a bit more grown up, or maybe finally bush to get him and his backers to carry on pissing away money (84 million so far acc wiki)

This meme that sanders is unelectable is propaganda. If it's repeated enough, it will be believed. Sanders polls better than Clinton against all of the republican candidates. Clinton's only effective strategy has been to prevent people from hearing about sanders. The cat's out of the bag now. Good luck getting it back in. Every time Clinton attacks Bernie, his donations go up by millions. Clinton can only get more money from super-pacs, an issue at the dead center of this election.

 

I've been watching Sanders since he was in low single digits, as I heard him speak way before he announced. I thought, "man, this guy could actually turn things around." He's been underestimated many times and has come out on top. He has more experience with populist campaigns than anyone else in modern politics. He's handing Clinton her ass every debate, on a couple of key issues that resonate. She is modifying her positions, not him. This is fascinating.

[imatfaal]

This meme that sanders is unelectable is propaganda. If it's repeated enough, it will be believed. Sanders polls better than Clinton against all of the republican candidates. Clinton's only effective strategy has been to prevent people from hearing about sanders. The cat's out of the bag now. Good luck getting it back in. Every time Clinton attacks Bernie, his donations go up by millions. Clinton can only get more money from super-pacs, an issue at the dead center of this election.

 

I've been watching Sanders since he was in low single digits, as I heard him speak way before he announced. I thought, "man, this guy could actually turn things around." He's been underestimated many times and has come out on top. He has more experience with populist campaigns than anyone else in modern politics. He's handing Clinton her ass every debate, on a couple of key issues that resonate. She is modifying her positions, not him. This is fascinating.

 

Not sure you are right there. Firstly - what is political campaigning other than propaganda with makeup on?

 

Secondly Polling one candidate in primaries against another is notoriously unreliable - it asks a make believe question with too many "ifs and ands".

 

Finally - Hillary has raised over 50 million in individual donations aside from PACs.

 

You are obviously a fan of Bernie - as am I. And I agree with your comments on his politics. It is moving opinion with democrats - but it is undecided and the lazy who the Democrat needs to mobilize. The Democratic candidate wins when lots of people vote - when they stay at home the Republican wins; Bernie will energize some - but will he get those in states where he would need to win against a challenge

[overtone]

 

 

what is political campaigning other than propaganda with makeup on?

Establishment of voter familiarity with one's opinions, agenda, record, and general personality.

[iNow]

Clinton slaughtered Sanders in South Carolina. Numbers not yet final, but looks like 74% to 26%. Not looking good for the Bernie campaign chances on Tuesday.

[overtone]

 

 

Clinton slaughtered Sanders in South Carolina. Numbers not yet final, but looks like 74% to 26%. Not looking good for the Bernie campaign chances on Tuesday

He lost older black voters, completely.

 

He never had them, of course - he was polling in the low single digits in SC a couple of months ago - but he couldn't get any by campaigning. In young voters, black and white, he was gaining ground (tripled his earlier poll numbers by campaigning). But not older.

 

I'd like to hear Chris Rock's take on that, or Spike Lee's, or Cornell West's, or one of those guys. (I recall both Rock and Lee making some relevant observations about old black men and their relations with old Jewish white men). But aside from a reality check for the very youthful, this doesn't look like momentum into Texas, or Minnesota, or anywhere outside the Confederate communities of old black people. What it looks like is a reality check on Bernie's familiarity gap.

 

Bernie's lack of familiarity is going to continue to hurt him, especially as his lack of campaign time and difficulty in getting screen time continues. But the "momentum" is still in his favor, whether it proves adequate or not.

[iNow]

Good points, all. Agree fully. Worse still, the 3:1 margin in SC cannot be explained by older black voter preferences alone. He lost significant portions of several other critically important demographic groups, as well.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/27/11128240/south-carolina-primary-sanders-clinton-polling

Why South Carolina may be the first of many big losses for Bernie Sanders

 

Hillary Clinton absolutely crushed Bernie Sanders in the South Carolina primary election on Saturday, defeating the senator by nearly 50 points.

 

What's worse, Sanders appears very likely to be in for a lot more of these kind of losses over the next few weeks. Sanders's strategy hinged on pulling voters, particularly minority voters, from Clinton's camp. But according to several recent surveys from Public Policy Polling, many of those voters may have already made up their minds.

[imatfaal]

Nearly 700 delegates to be decided in the next three days. Of the predictions that Nate is making for SuperT - Cruz has Texas, a few close calls, and a few Trump wins. I hope he is wrong but Nate and his crew have moved the chance of Va Republican vote from being a 50% chance of Rubio win to a 75% chance of Trump. I really do not see why Trump is getting this support - and I keep hoping that the bubble bursts - but not seeing those signs yet.

 

Perhaps the double teaming of Rubio and Cruz will work out - but I wonder if this plays to the groundlings or actually the reverse; in that Trump's constituency loves the idea that their candidate is being concertedly attacked by the old guard.

 

Christie throwing his lot in with Trump is another thinking point - is this a bid for VP? Or is that too east coast

[iNow]

My cynicism on the Christie endorsement matches yours. Here's what I said yesterday in the Trump thread:

 

Agree completely. I also feel it was a supremely smart move by Christie. While Christue obviously wasn't going to receive the nod from voters for the number one spot he sought, this sets him up to possibly get there through a process back door since he's now at the very top of the list for a legitimate Trump VP pick (or at minimum a very senior cabinet position).

[imatfaal]

My cynicism on the Christie endorsement matches yours. Here's what I said yesterday in the Trump thread:

Agree with yours in the Trump thread. Although admittedly - from all the sort of people that Trump could run with Christie would be a great choice; experience of Government at a state level, even though a demagogue he is also a real politician, has a good track record of dirty tricks, and has already seized the opportunity of allying himself to a powerful politician to the chagrin of the GOP grandees (bear hug anyone?)

[iNow]

They're both bullies, too, and bullies are polling extremely well in the GOP right now (even more so than they have the last several decades).

[overtone]

Christie throwing his lot in with Trump is another thinking point - is this a bid for VP?

I just think game knows game, and Christie is a mob boss type who wants to be in with the winner. Rubio is not impressive as a boss, and not easily manipulable as a tool (by Christie). Plus Rubio seems like the kind of weenie who would hold a grudge, and endorsing him wouldn't erase it.

 

From what I've seen at a distance it would surprise me if the VP role were attractive to Christie. I would expect - just on general principles - Trump's fantastic upside of DoD contracts etc, and his more than adequate downside of real estate investment connections and big honcho friendship, to be in the front row of the considerations.

If I were strategizing here, I would pick a VP for Trump who looks like a very good hire as a diplomat and Congressional liaison, but with military more than political experience.

 

A Colin Powell type, but with no connection whatsoever to W.

 

Just me, but I think Trump's lack of military background is his major weakness in the general. He needs a visible source of principled decisionmaking, also. A military VP covers both.

 

And if the guy has a uniform with a lot of shiny medals on it, that he can still fit into, the entire production will meet the appropriate standards we have become accustomed to for these types of political campaign events.

Edited February 28, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

Sanders took Vermont, but nothing else so far. Oklahoma and Massachusetts will be interesting to see when they close in 13 minutes.

 

Trump is dominating thus far, and took Georgia, though Rubio looks good/close in Virginia.

 

Curious to see what happens in Texas for both parties.

---

Merged post follows:

[/mp]

Looks like Clinton and Cruz are going to take Texas. Cruz up by 10%, Clinton up by...a lot... Like a whole lot...about 40%.

 

Clinton ahead by 6% in Oklahoma, 3.5% in Massacusetts.

Trump ahead by 6% in Oklahoma.

[mp]

Sanders won Oklahoma. Cruz won there, too.

 

Sanders looking good in Colorado and Minnesota. 3% down in Massachusetts.

 

Rubio may have achieved one win with Minnesota.

Edited March 2, 2016 by iNow

[imatfaal]

Alabama · 50 delegates 100% reporting ·

Trump won and has 28 delegates, Cruz has 2

 

Alaska · 28 delegates

Cruz won and has 12 delegates, Trump has 11, Rubio has 5

 

Arkansas · 40 delegates 96% reporting

Trump won and has 13 delegates, Cruz has 9, Rubio has 6

 

Georgia · 76 delegates 99% reporting ·

Trump won and has 36 delegates, Rubio has 11, Cruz has 14

 

Massachusetts · 42 delegates

Trump won and has 22 delegates, Kasich has 8, Rubio has 8, Cruz has 4

 

Minnesota · 38 delegates 92% reporting ·

Rubio won and has 12 delegates, Cruz has 12, Trump has 8

 

Oklahoma · 43 delegates 100% reporting ·

Cruz won and has 14 delegates, Trump has 12, Rubio has 11

 

Tennessee · 58 delegates 99% reporting ·

Trump won and has 30 delegates, Cruz has 12, Rubio has 2

 

Texas · 155 delegates 99% reporting ·

Cruz won and has 57 delegates, Trump has 20

 

Vermont · 16 delegates 97% reporting ·

Trump won and has 6 delegates, Kasich has 6

 

Virginia · 49 delegates

Trump won and has 17 delegates, Rubio has 16, Cruz has 8, Kasich has 5, Carson has 3

[iNow]

For years our international neighbors have considered the US to be full of xenophobic, ignorant, arrogant, racists, but lacked sufficient evidence to support such a hyperbolic stance. Not any more, though. Last night changed all that.

 

Empiricism FTW!!

Edited March 2, 2016 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Sanders looking good in Colorado and Minnesota.

 

Awesome caucus last night. Probably overflowed the high school's capacity for the classroom where 68 Dems showed up for my precinct (the 2012 caucus had 8 of us in that room). The room was almost completely divided, 34 for Clinton, 32 for Sanders, 2 Undecided. And no yelling, no divisiveness, no ill-feelings, just some VERY intelligent and broadly experienced people deciding complex issues using reason, historical precedence, and reality-based information. The decisions made seemed to avoid as much emotional argument as possible, so we had no "heated" debate so prevalent in what I've seen from the Republican side. The debate points made were all valid, and were deemed so by everyone, even when they were often at odds with each other.

 

We had one Sanders advocate that eloquently pointed out that among all the candidates, Sanders is the only one who has stuck by his political stances for 40 years, and remained the most consistent in NOT being prey to special interests. Clinton supported TPP, now she's against it, and some think she's going to flip back once in office, due to "changes" in the partnership that are now favorable. Bernie totally opposes it, based on the historical erosion of worker's unions, and the chaos that's bred when we expose unsophisticated countries to American military/industrial/business model exploitation for profit masked as fair trade. That part had just about everyone in the room, Hillarites and Berners, nodding in agreement. I think the consensus from the room (just my opinion, mind you), was that Sanders represents a lot of good change, but it may be too much for some to think he has a chance of working with a conservative Congress. I'm not sure why they think Clinton has a better chance (since the Republicans hate her on multiple levels, whereas Bernie is simply dismissed as a Pinkocommusocialist).

 

I got to vote on a proposition that's very dear to me. My favorite science & nature museum is partially funded by federal dollars, so it's required to allow conceal & carry firearm permit holders (who aren't really required to know very much about handguns) to bring a handgun into a museum, something our state and city funded cultural buildings don't have to tolerate. We had one dissenter, and even she was not shouted down emotionally (I simply wanted to know which days she visited the museum, and I said it with a smile).

[iNow]

I think the consensus from the room (just my opinion, mind you), was that Sanders represents a lot of good change, but it may be too much for some to think he has a chance of working with a conservative Congress. I'm not sure why they think Clinton has a better chance (since the Republicans hate her on multiple levels, whereas Bernie is simply dismissed as a Pinkocommusocialist).

They may hate her, but they also hate Obama and would likely continue their vitriol toward Sanders. Basically, that's going to apply to any non-GOP member.

 

That said, I will say that knowing the system as well as she does, having all of these decades of experience across many different roles (first lady, senator, secretary of state)... That brings important knowledge of process. The changes may be incremental, but I feel she's better equipped to make them happen.

 

She knows all the small hallways, proverbial hidden rooms and cracks in the foundation. She knows many of the critical ways wheels get greased and stuck out nails get hammered down. She knows who's who and where leverage can be applied (both from external stakeholders and by internal confidants and congressional staff)... All of that helps Hillary, IMO.

 

Bernie clearly represents more of the ideals for which I stand. Like the voters you encountered last night, I struggled with this sentiment about his ability to get it (any of it, really) done. He's right, we need a revolution to make his ideas a reality, but with the way districts are drawn and campaigns funded, I just don't see congress shifting enough to allow it, even with high voter turnout. Progressives tend to be less militant about getting out and voting on their issues than conservatives are about theirs.

 

I want his ideas to come to fruition... healthcare, education, focus on poverty and improvement of inequality. That said, I see Hillary as probably the more capable of the two when it comes to getting any of it done in this intransigent do-nothing congress.... despite her being the recipient of such hate and caricature.

[Phi for All]

Great points, iNow. I think if Sanders gets the nomination, he'd need the movement to somehow bring him enough congressional seats to push some of his best ideas. And I truly think it might be doable, if his concept of Socialism can be explained to Trump supporters to point out how it really aligns with many of the things they're mistakenly hoping the Donald isn't lying about.

 

Many Trump supporters just think he's going to destroy the establishment and they want to watch the world burn with him in charge. If they could think more on the positive side, they might realize Sanders offers a more controlled version of the same things, without any invective, racial hate, or special business interests.

 

Many think Trump is a low risk, high reward candidate, but they think the same thing of Sanders. Many might realize Sanders proposals come with the added guarantees of 40 years of consistent policies and voting records.

 

Many Trump supporters consider him a liberal who wants the US to be on top again. I think those folks could also be persuaded by a movement, rather than Sanders as an even more liberal candidate, that would include getting rid of the worst of the obfuscaters and log-jammers in Congress.

 

Hillary is going to continue the Middle East strategies that seem to grow the business of terrorism for both sides. That and the fact that she won't touch banking and telecom regs in her term(s) is also off-putting to me, and I hope to many.

 

I should probably start a Sanders Movement thread, and see if anyone thinks such a drive might be able to put him in office AND help give him a Congress that won't just say no to everything he wants to change.