I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

agree w/Karl generally - Sanders is gonna win NH and then flame out on Super Tuesday, on the GOP side it's harder to tell how long things are going to drag on since it seems like absolutely no one is willing to drop out as long as theirs still money rolling in, but agree that from a general election standpoint the conventional wisdom re: the math of a rubio/clinton face-off is probably the most attractive to the GOP.

xxp

It's worth noting that if we're just editing the title, it will still show up as "Fuck All Shit, etc" in our bookmarks.

at least until the cache resets

otoh this title is wonderful and I don't want to lose it

can we rename every thread on ILE to this

Sanders will "flame out" on March 1, huh? it could happen ... but maybe not

Super Tuesday slate:

Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado caucus
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota caucus
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

how many of those can Sanders plausibly 'do well in' besides VT and MA? MN, VA...?

i had to google rubio to remember what he looked like.

http://www.puppetsandprops.com/Images/Eddie2.jpg

maybe CO? lots of college stoner types, but a lot of libertarian streaks in the state.

really wish my state had a serious Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate

how was this thread title not a variation on "i feel like obama does the national debt on purpose"

^

i'm gonna start a new thread since this bookmark has all the potty words in it still

man, rubio is a child. hillary could eat him for breakfast and still have room for brunch.

Sanders will "flame out" on March 1, huh? it could happen ... but maybe not

I know everyone's gotten into the habit of saying this election is not like any other prior primary, but that's really only true on the GOP side. On the Dem side things are adhering to a very familiar pattern that's held true for decades (Obama being the exception, for rather obvious reasons). I don't see anything in Sanders' campaign to suggest his run is structurally different from his predecessors.

xp

I predict Sanders will be competitive in all of those states except mmmmmmaybe Oklahoma; I also predict that the states where he has the best chance for an outright win besides VT and MN are CO and VA. I think, based on the number of establishment Democrats I know in this state as well as the number of people who are dissatisfied with Sanders; proposals not having the level of concrete detail to them they want in order to see if they are feasible, that MA is going to be much more competitive than someone outside of New England would think. It's easy to think of the states up here as being a single entity since most of them are the size of a postage stamp but things that would fly in NH/VT/ME are not necessarily going to play well in MA/CT/RI and vice versa; in MA, Sanders has faced some amount of pushback for being an unrealistic VT hippie who hasn't had to represent an appreciably large number of heterogeneous people throughout his entire campaign.

lmao old lunch xps

I don't think Bern is being nominated either, but NY isn't until April 19, and i don't see him dropping out before then.

https://media.giphy.com/media/AJmXWUFsZgnPW/giphy.gif

well i'll be, good analysis from matt yglesias

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10892724/bernie-sanders-wake-up-call

Democratic leaders aren't as smart as they think

The Clinton campaign's strategy will, of course, be second-guessed as stumbling frontrunners always are. But the larger problem is the way that party as a whole — elected officials, operatives, leaders of allied interest groups, major donors, greybeard elder statespersons, etc. — decided to cajole all viable non-Clinton candidates out of the race. This had the effect of making a Clinton victory much more likely than it would have been in a scenario when she was facing off against Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Deval Patrick. But it also means that the only alternative to Clinton is a candidate the party leaders don't regard as viable.

Trying to coordinate your efforts to prevent something crazy from happening is smart — otherwise you might wind up with Donald Trump. But trying to foreclose any kind of meaningful contact with the voters or debate about party priorities, strategy, and direction was arrogant and based on a level of self-confidence about Democratic leaders' political judgment that does not seem borne out by the evidence. This is a party that has no viable plan for winning the House of Representatives, that's been pushed to a historic low point in terms of state legislative seats, and that somehow lost the governor mansions in New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

It's a party, in other words, that was clearly in need of some dialogue, debate, and contestation over what went wrong and how to fix it. But instead of encouraging such a dialogue, the party tried to cut it off. That leaves them with Sanders's Political Revolution theory. It doesn't seem very plausible to me, but at least it's something.

so gonna happen...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2015/4/clinton.jpg

Iowa poll a year ago

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/694534028775530496

huh, i didn't see that shaun king had endorsed sanders. that seems like it could mean something

ok lol at the thread title. my suggestion was meant in jest ftr.

Super Tuesday is basically intended to arrest any New England liberals getting too far along in the process. so yeah not so surprising that it looks like a rough day for sanders. massachusetts, minnesota, colorado and lol vermont do all seem do-able though not without a fight in most. it's the next couple weeks after that where he could actually soak up some delegates, so long as he still looks like a real, fighting candidate:

MARCH 5 - Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas
MARCH 6 - Maine
MARCH 8 - Mississippi, Michigan
MARCH 15 - Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio

as previously noted, i think the effective tie in iowa helps him more than hurts him in this regard, he just has to be able to shrug off a week or so of bad news. he has the money to keep campaigning, and since his mission is to force his issues into the conversation, he has every incentive to stay in and keep churning up delegates even in states he can't win. even if the national media basically tune him out, each state that he campaigns in extensively (ad buys, public appearances, etc.) is subject to an overton window shift of some kind. people whose first voting experience is voting for the democratic socialist are going to have to see the range of possibilities a little differently.

i know i sound like a broken record on these themes, but i really think this is the more interesting story in this election, since the horse-race stuff (on the dem side) is a foregone conclusion bar the details. may i remind you that a self-proclaimed socialist just tied in a nominating contest in the corn-fed heartland of america! saying "oh yeah sure but iowa is full of white liberals" is leaving out too much detail imho - exactly what does "liberal" mean, what kind of things are on the table... i mean generally "liberal" in america has come to mean a pretty short list of MOR civil-rights positions and not being aligned with the real corporate scumbags, not necessarily "fuck it, let's just go back to taxing the rich to pay for needed services and an expanded welfare state." it could be that some core things are shifting under the radar. i dunno. this isn't really fully formulated, sorry.

("week or so of bad news" referring to super tuesday results, not iowa)

feel like it's important to bear in mind that at some point the math of "[candidate] needs to win x number of delegates in upcoming contests to win the nomination" becomes more and more critical. And once one candidate starts to outpace the others and the likelihood of the remaining candidates racking up the necessary number of delegates in the remaining contests diminishes, things start to look like a foregone conclusion pretty quick.

also lol: http://www.sfgate.com/news/local/politics/article/Loser-com-now-redirects-to-Wikipedia-page-of-6800933.php

another critical factor that hasn't yet gotten the thinkpiece it deserves:

chants of "BER-NIE! BER-NIE! BER-NIE! BER-NIE!" are inherently more exciting and easier to join than "HIL-LA-RY! HIL-LA-RY!" or "CLIN-TON! CLIN-TON!"

xpost Juvenile and yet so beautiful.

who is Shaun King?

Retired surgeon Ben Carson, who was polling strong a few months ago, headed for home to Florida after finishing in fourth place with 9 percent of the vote. In a bizarre message, his campaign said he wasn’t suspending his campaign but just that “Dr. Carson needs to go home and get a fresh set of clothes.”

xp: Civil rights guy who sorta came to prominence in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting.

ok, i read a NYT Mag profile of him about a year ago but forgot his name.

Lindsey Lindskog
‏@lollipopxlindz
Did @HillaryClinton just take notes on everything @BernieSanders has been saying, paraphrase it, and pass it off as her speech? #IowaCaucus

Matt Taibbi
‏@mtaibbi
Yes. It's the politics version of the movie "Species."

Shaun King is an activist loosely affiliated with Black Lives Matters who has started becoming famous for being light-skinned enough that some of his detractors have claimed he's pulling a Rachel Dolezal, raising funds for charities aimed at improving the lives of black people that seem to dissipate after the fundraising effort completes and getting denounced by other Black Lives Matters activists on Twitter.

http://i.imgur.com/e2GdYPW.png

luv 2 gamble

lmao predictorbros are so panicky

if it turns out that yes, one early narrow loss is enough to deflate or derail the whole trump phenomenon it'll be so weird. strangely encouraging and disheartening at once

it's Short Attention Span Punditry

i think part of trump's brand is his power and losing to ted cruz even if it's not a surprise makes him look vulnerable, which is probably the worst thing he can appear to be.

I could almost see a butthurt Trump just taking his ball and going home.

"I thought you wanted me to be president, but I guess you're all just a bunch of losers. Maybe I'll sue you. I dunno."

I think he had more on the line than anyone with Iowa since his whole campaign narrative was 'everyone loves me, I'm number one, look at the polls' etc etc

one early narrow loss is enough to deflate or derail the whole trump phenomenon it'll be so weird.

he seems well positioned to win NH, unless he's committed the same predictable error there as he did in Iowa (ie hoping his media exposure will make up for not having a ground game that turns out actual votes). If he happens to lose NH it's gonna get pretty ugly for him.

xp

I could almost see a butthurt Trump just taking his ball and going home.

― Chortles And Guffaws (Old Lunch)

interesting mixed metaphor

Trump gives every indication of having no respect or interest in the actual mechanics of getting voters to the polls - retail politics, state-level infrastructure, etc. It isn't just about polls and exposure, there's this whole other more grueling, more mechanical process that converts that other stuff into actual votes. If he doesn't get that, he's fucked.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/PZYAvZoBgSwUF.mEZIYu9Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9Mzc3O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B4b2ZmPTUwO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTY3MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-GTY-507942236-1-1-1.jpg

Why is she licking his hand?

should I make a dirty joke

btw NYT said last week that Bill has lost the Old Magic on the stump -- meandering, boring, wheezy

interesting that Hillary took Des Moines, figured Sanders would've had the advantage there

I liked how that NYT piece attributed his lack of dynamism to his veganism

white guys with graduate degrees will be ok

My dad being a Trump supporter is the saddest thing (mom thinks he's insane). Idk maybe he thinks Trump can help him repay the 7k he owes me

Still don't want to be in a country that's beholden to whatever voting bloc Trump is half-intentionally forming

xp to kev

This "Is Trump the new right?" is reminiscent of 2008 debates where "is Nixon or Reagan the ideological ancester of the current GOP?" was the quesiton.

Yeah the tea party was scary, but this new thing is weirder and scarier potentially.

eh I don't know. Tea Party folks control my state legislature and lots of others. They've done more horrible shit than use orange rinse in their hair and yell at a Cuban American whelp in Papi's Brooks Brothers suit

The tea party succeeded in pushing Congress to shut down the government over nonsense budget nonsense

Yeah they've had a pernicious effect for sure. It's hard to tell what *this* will wnd up being. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's a major shift in the Republican Party

btw, it worth remembering that Reagan was given a free pass by evangelicals, even though it was transparently obvious that, like Trump, his faith consisted entirely of lip service and his true convictions were wholly secular. Trump needn't fear that many of the Cruz/Carson voters will defect from him in the general.

I have Brooks Brothers glasses. Can I still be a progressive?

i think the tea party has peaked tbh, so much of their anger was so focused on such a non-existent problem and was so obviously formed because Obama won in 2008 (long before he destroyed america with--oh wait) that i think people are generally done with them. trump's success i think is a little bit of that leftover, a little bit of the weak republican field, and a lot of his celebrity power. not 100% worried it's enough to carry him to victory in November, not 100% worried that if he does win it does anything more than potentially be even more destructive for the republican party than a loss, not 100% convinced on either of the previous points though.

Yeah, one of the ironies of 1980 was evangelicals went for a Hollywood actor over a Sunday-school teaching born-again. xxp

The gradual process of a successful Trump campaign has been a horrifying development, but I'm trying to imagine how shocked I'd be if I somehow missed everything between his escalator-ride announcement and his current standing. It was supposed to be a joke. Like if Gary Busey ran or something.

xpost i thought reagan was a superchristian? i remembered reading anecdotes about how how he truly believed armageddon would take place in his lifetime (chilling considering the us/ussr nuclear stuff going on at the time), and then he had this quote in People in 1983:

"Theologians had been studying the ancient prophecies-what would portend the coming of Armageddon?-and have said that never, in the time between the prophecies up until now, has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this.

...I think whichever generation and at whatever time, when the time comes, the generation that is there, I think will have to go on doing what they believe is right."

i dunno, i guess that could just be lip service too, but he seemed to be a believer

yes i think he believed all that but w/out running off to church.

white guys with graduate degrees will be ok

well i don't have a grad degree but i DO have cancer, so eager to see what Trumpcare will look like!

Tea Party has also peaked partly because the label is now perceived, by those the right, to have been coopted by opportunistic rent-seekers.

it's a boy: can we at least say that it's a trifle odd to have someone who travels in a private plane with his name written on the fuselage in 7-foot-high letters presented as a "champion of the downtrodden little guy"?

i think the tea party has peaked tbh, so much of their anger was so focused on such a non-existent problem and was so obviously formed because Obama won in 2008

I don't think the tea party was ever a movement, it was just convenient for the media to frame it like one. there are just a lot of crazy people out there. nothing to peak, they're not going away. this kinda reactionary nationalism started bubbling up thanks to dubya. obama was a catalyst but the america love it or leave it tough guy president stuff started post-9/11.

I don't doubt that Reagan took seriously ancient Biblical prophecies. He and Nancy also famously consulted astrologers. Probably his personal beliefs were a very Hollywood-esque melange of New Age beliefs and idiosyncratic theology.

Reagan was so Christian that he never went to church

The tea party was specifically obsessed with the budget though, I thought, and this idea that people who couldn't pay their mortgages should suffer for it. Seems like a very different message than Trump, although I assume it involves many of the same people

Reagan's religious allegiances showed themselves with the Bob Jones shit and hiring James Watt and the cult of lachrymose masculinity that worked at Pentagon and NSC.

a very Hollywood-esque melange of New Age beliefs and idiosyncratic theology.

yeah this is about right afaict. hardly disingenuous tho.

Tea Partiers were proportionally drawn more from the wealthier end of the GOP, which would be kind of the opposite of Trump's core demographic. xxp

That describes a lot of American Christianity honestly

Xp to dll.

Should probably get zing so this doesn't keep happening

And yeah, you're right o.nate. The original "tea party" was supposed to be a rebellion of bond traders rebelling against Obama's debt relief program lol

it was Bush's debt relief program when it started

this thread is so big it’s crashing my browser, so I took the liberty of starting a new one:

Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

or bank bail outs or whatever

Santelli's rant was about Obama's mortgage relief i thought

I've never heard of him, he was a CNBC anchor?? Wiki says he made some kind of statement on February 19, 2009, and my memory is that Tea Party was in the air well before that

I thought thats where the word "tea party" came from, but i am just going off my memories of reading griftopia in 2011

Taxed Enough Already = T.E.A., plus the dudes already had a boner for the Founding Fathers