Cruz

Republicans Have No Ethics Ever, Proven

gregladen — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:12:35 +0000

Republicans Have No Ethics Ever, Proven

There may be a few individuals who are not in politics who have some ethics who still call themselves Republicans. One such person, a friend of mine for whom I have great respect, sent me an email the other day apologizing. For the whole Trump and Republican thing.

But at the professional level, there isn't a single Republican out there that is unwilling to stick his slimy nose right up the ass of whichever other Republican happens to be top dog at the moment, putting their own self interest ahead of the nation, of governing, of the people, even of their own families.

As proven by events of the last 48 hours.

Step away from the hot cup of coffee and have a look:

So, does this mean that Ted Cruz's father actually did shoot JFK?

gregladen Fri, 11/18/2016 - 03:12

Tags

President Donald Trump

cabinet

Cruz

Romney

Trump

19% of Sanders supporters would throw Clinton under the bus

gregladen — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:37:16 +0000

19% of Sanders supporters would throw Clinton under the bus

A new poll (March 24th) by Monmouth University says, "Among Democrats who support Bernie Sanders for their party’s nomination, 78% say they would vote for Clinton over Trump in November, while 12% would actually vote for Trump and 7% would not vote at all."

The Republicans have a similar problem, where "two-thirds (68%) of voters who back Ted Cruz for the GOP nomination say they would vote for Trump in November, while 13% would vote for Clinton and 10% would not vote. Among Republicans who back John Kasich, just 50% would vote for Trump and 19% would vote for Clinton, with 22% saying they would sit out the general election."

It is still early to attribute much meaning to such polls, but the question of the "Bernie or Bust factor has been raised, with those who don't like to think it may be true demanding evidence, those who fear it is true somewhat exaggerating its effect.

Clinton would beat Trump

According to the same poll, "[i]n a hypothetical head-to-head race, Clinton has a putative 10 point lead – 48% to 38% for Trump. While Clinton gets the support of 89% of self described Democrats – a fairly typical partisan support level at this stage of the race – Trump can only claim the support of 73% of Republicans."

Clinton would also beat Cruz, but Kasich would beat Clinton.

Hat Tip: Doug Alder.

gregladen Tue, 03/29/2016 - 01:37

Tags

Looking at that poll, in every matchup, Clinton got fewer independents. Only 1% fewer against Trump, but 11% fewer against Cruz, and 25% fewer against Kasich.

My impression – and I don't have much to base this on – is that John Kasich has been defined by John Kasich, and that the aforementioned poll reflects this. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have as yet had good reason to scrutinize his record. If he's the Republican nominee, that would change.

Re. Clinton-Sanders: Has a comparable poll of Clinton supporters been taken, and if so, what were the results, i.e. what percent would vote for Sanders, what percent would vote for the Republican, and what percent just wouldn't?

cosmicomics,

Since polls like this are not very useful this far out, I will offer my "fundamental" opinion, based on past elections. If the opponent is Kasich, lots of Democrats (men in particular) will vote for him over Sanders, assuming the scrutiny you mention does not result in general negatives.

Sanders will definitely lose to Kasich. Clinton will probably win, but it would be close.

Clinton takes away the issues that would hurt Sanders, particularly foreign policy, and gender gap should play well in her favor.

zebra - It's true that polls are not giving us the full story. However, every poll I have seen shows Sanders with a better lead than Clinton against all three of the potential Republican nominees, including beating Kasich. If we want to go with gut feelings rather than polls, we can support them any way we like. You say that more male Democrats will go for Kasich if Sanders is the nominee, but that a gender gap would benefit Clinton. I would say that if you assume more undecided women will vote for the Democrat if she's a woman, you should also assume that more undecided men will vote for the Republican in that case. You say foreign policy hurts Sanders. I think that many independents are sick of a foreign policy centered on endless wars and coups d'etat, and Sanders, unlike Clinton, will offer a clear difference from the Republican candidate.

The ongoing results of various national head-to-heads comparing Sanders's performance with Clintons suggest exactly this, that where Sanders beats a GOP candidate, Clinton would beat that same candidate by a smaller amount, in some cases losing where Sanders would win - suggesting that Sanders supporters, when faced with a Clinton choice, would either abandon her for the GOP or not bother to vote at all. This is unfortunate - but given the factual Clinton (both Bill and Hill) record on economic conservatism, catering to the professional as opposed to working classes, and their subtle but effective undermining of minorities in the 1990s, not terribly surprising. I think they have both improved somewhat as to the last issue, but it's still hard to make a case for Clinton being a liberal-populist economic maven.

Cosmicomics, I think your comment about Kasich is exactly on the nose.

The polls surely seem to support the "manufactured consent" hypothesis of propaganda (lies told often enough) as reality, 'cause surely Clinton would have next to zero % if the average voter were even slightly informed about her and her husband's actual records and their contributions to the destruction of the middle class, while making a handful of the worst among us absurdly wealthy.
And for those of you who are yourselves criminally uninformed about Clinton (s), Google it. It's all there!

Bruce Jensen #5,

The polls tell us nothing at this point, other than what people say in response to the polls.

As I pointed out in a previous thread, the poll results show internal contradiction. If someone is motivated to vote for Sanders by "liberal/progressive" ideology, it would make no sense to then "abandon Clinton for the GOP." Stay home out of petulance, perhaps, but who needs friends like that.

Now, if a large component of the Sanders voters are really R-leaning in the first place, for which there is some evidence, certainly they would go back to their usual voting pattern in the general election. That's why Kasich resoundingly defeats Sanders; that group plus conservative Dems both support the "compassionate conservative" who instills confidence about foreign policy ability.

And I don't see where you get the idea that minorities are alienated from Clinton. If so, why are they not flocking to support Sanders, and why are they giving Hillary overwhelming support? In the general, Sanders would inspire less turnout from that critical group, as he has so far.

Even though they are very different, Sanders and Trump are both populist and anti-establishment - which is good enough for a lot of people. Susan Sarandon was just interviewed and said if Sanders is not an option, voting for Trump might just bring the revolution sooner. I am not sanguine about living under a Trump administration, and though I'm not wealthy, it would probably be more comfortable for me to kick the can down the road and vote for Clinton. But I have a lot of friends who are a lot closer to the edge of poverty than me, so I can understand why they really don't want more of the same.

zebra - Bruce Jensen doesn't say that minorities feel alienated from Clinton, only that the Clintons in fact threw them under the bus in the 1990s but managed to do it subtly enough that hardly anyone noticed. Also,your characterization of voters is too simplistic. Many of Sanders' supporters are liberal/progressives, but not all; nor is it true that if they are not true-blue Democrats, they will surely abandon him in November for the Republican alternative, no matter how odious.

Suppose for a moment that my primary interest in voting is to reduce the number of foreigners America kills; since Hillary and Kasich are both neoconservatives in terms of foreign policy, there is relatively little difference between them, whereas Sanders vs. Kasich offers a real contrast. Not all Americans think that uber-hawkishness is the only way to "instill confidence." There's a column up at Salon today in which someone said (paraphrased): look, Hillary voted for Iraq, she was up to her neck in Syria and Libya (also, it might be noted, in favor of overthrowing the Ukrainian government) ... experience is only an asset if you appear to be capable of learning from it.

Not only are polls meaningless this far from the election, but I wonder about who is responding to these polls (the sample).

My phone rings about every other day, and my caller id lets me see who is calling - and if I even think it is possible it is a pollster I let it ring and go to the answering machine.

I cannot be alone in avoiding answering polls.

If they call 20 people for every person who actually answers, how accurate is that?

How representative is the sample of actual voters in Nov. 2016?

My guess - a lot less than it was 20 years ago.

How many people have ditched their landline - and is it even legal to call cell phones for polling?

I am not even sure about the accuracy of entrance and exit polls - I think quite a few people lie about who they will vote for or who they actually voted for.

Look at Michigan - totally wrong!

So I wouldn't pay any attention to any polls until about 10 days before the election (kind of like the weather).

RickA, this is all known. There is a science of polling, and the pollsters are aware of these issues. Generally, polls are pretty good measures of the current thinking of some or another group of people. Their weakness is time, they don't reflect the future that well in a changing situation. On the other hand, even when things are changing, certain information from the polls remain useful, which is why they ask questions beyond simply what a person would do in the voting booth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/upshot/bernie-sanders-faces-tougher-t…

With all due respect to Greg, here's another demographic-type analysis. (Really, Greg, I'm sure you could have done just as thorough a job had you assigned the details to your staff and all the interns...)

But it speaks to the point in #13. Snapshot "if the election were today" polls don't tell us much, particularly while the primaries are still undecided.

But there is a lot of information that has been accumulated over time about how people vote and think. That's what we can look at "scientifically" in making projections; it isn't perfect but it also isn't wishful-thinking fantasies.

Trump 2017. Lets make america great again, lets get that wall built around mexico. Think of the jobs the construction will create. Only Trump can create a national divide.

I call on all Hillary Clinton supporters to back Ronald Trump for next president of the USA.

#9
"Even though they are very different, Sanders and Trump are both populist and anti-establishment – which is good enough for a lot of people."

Which is good enough for people who are too shallow to look into facts,
such as who it is that benefits from Trump's tax proposal.

Aside from that, if, as seems probable, Sanders loses the nomination, he would still have a role to play. His campaign has aroused enthusiasm and emphasized certain issues that otherwise might have been ignored. Clinton and the Democratic Party would have an obvious interest in securing Sanders's support, and I have little doubt that the Democratic platform will be influenced by his positions. Sanders has said that both Democratic candidates are 100 times better than any of the Republicans, and there's no reason to question that he means it. His active participation in a Clinton campaign cannot therefore be ruled out, and neither can the possibility that he would sway a number of supporters who currently state that they could not vote for Clinton.

My ideal scenario of Sanders is not nominated is that he's offered and takes the VP slot, and becomes a sort of "Campaign Finance Reform Tzar" and also takes on one or two other key issues from his campaign.

And, in return for getting to carry on his revolution that way, he campaigns heavily for the ticket, but focuses on down ballot campaigning to blue-up the Congress in both houses.

In a recent Young Turks interview Sanders said he would not look to include Clinton in his cabinet, then cited a long list of policy demands that would have to be met before he would even endorse her. Nevertheless, one of my independent, but red-leaning office friends thinks she needs him much more than he needs her, and that Hillary will ask Bernie to the prom, as VP, to keep the party together. But another one of my more radical friends thought Sanders was selling out just by listing those policy demands. So I don't know if Clinton would offer VP, if Sanders would accept it, or how many of his people would accept him accepting it.

cosmicomics - "People who are too shallow to look into facts" are often people who are too badly educated by American schools to be able to read and think about complex or mathematical issues; people who are too overworked and tired to spend time seeking out non-corporate news and/or too poor and isolated to have access to much of it; people who, because they are old and remember real news or because they are young and raised to complacency, don't understand how fully the television is dedicated to misinforming them. These things are not character flaws for which they can be held Personally Responsible (TM), as being "shallow" is.

I understand that we have a vicious cycle. The elites insult and mock the ignorant rubes, who rightly resent being treated with contempt, and respond by rejecting and opposing the values and beliefs of the elite. In doing so, they become a pain in the ass to others, thus making a new round of contempt seem justifiable. I deplore this pattern, yet like many if not most overeducated Americans, participate in it. I look at those Trump voters who seem eager to find a solution for their economic woes in racism and say "Glad you lost your job, you dumb sumbitch, you deserve to be poor." But their kids don't deserve it, and their neighbors don't. And if the left wing isn't able to offer a hand to their communities, the right wing will, and they'll grab it like a life preserver without asking the price.

A 75 year old VP for a 69 year old President?

Come on. What ever happened to building for the future?

It should be someone younger with executive experience that can be groomed to run if she decides to do only one term-- which I think she should. That's where the energy of the Bernie fans should be directed, along with moving Congress and State offices back to Dem control. Show there really is a desire for that kind of change at the local level first.

And Elizabeth Warren is the person with the temperament to be a czar, not Bernie. Maybe Biden could do election reform and Warren finance.

(BTW, I am not optimistic that the US public has any interest in real change-- it is far more conservative in the non-political sense than energized partisans on either side like to think.)

#19
For some the explanation you give in your first paragraph is certainly true, but not for all, and in general I think that a lack of political awareness is more typical of Trump than of Sanders supporters. Here we're talking about the –as I see it – generally better informed Sanders supporters who declare that they would rather support Trump than Clinton. If they claim that Trump and Sanders are similar enough to justify them voting for Trump, it could be because they're so invested in Sanders, and so politically inexperienced and immature that they can't imagine voting for the person who beat their hero, and find it inconvenient to examine whether the posited similarity holds water.

Keep in mind that some who declare that they would rather support Trump than Clinton may be saying that as a form of blackmail: "You'd better join me in voting for Sanders or I'll nullify your vote for Clinton by voting for Trump!"

Or it could be that they just don't want any more of what Clinton is offering:

http://billmoyers.com/story/the-blue-state-model/

Another problem with these polls, beyond the half-year of hell-raising still awaiting us, is the question of location.

It don't mean diddly if a frustrated Sandersista in Texas or Massachusetts pulls the red lever in November. It might mean everything if one too many does so in a swing state such as Florida or Ohio.

That's really worrying. Seen a few people saying this in various blogs and responded to one the other day by saying that de facto made them a Trump or Cruz voter. Which it does. And responsible - at least in some small part for the catastrophes and misery that will certainly follow.

I really hope people in American have learnt the lessons of the 2000 US election with "Dubya" Bush the lesser vs Gore and vs Nader. How different the world might've been had Gore been (more) convincingly elected instead..

Greg @ 17: spot-on.

My strategy is to vote for the most-progressive candidate on the ballot who has any chance of getting elected. In the primary that means "Birdie," and in the general that will probably mean Hillary, and under no circumstances does it ever mean a 3d party or indie candidate, or a spite vote or a non vote. A strong primary showing for Birdie translates to giving Hillary either permission or a nudge (depending on how you view her) to move a little to the left, and every centimeter counts.

Donal @ 9: Yes they're both populists, but one of them is also a Benito Mussolini clone come back to life. You could try telling your friends who are thinking of casting a spite vote, that if they are hit by government policy or the resulting economic hardship, you will give them no help or support whatsoever, and they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions on their own.

The entire idea "make it worse to bring it on" is "revolution over _someone else's_ dead body," while the perpetrators of that outcome watch smugly from the sidelines. It's cowardly, it's immoral, and it's evil because it involves calculated cruelty to others. People who spite-vote or refuse to vote are directly causing avoidable suffering, and they deserve to be shunned by their social circles: shut out altogether.

Plus two more Supreme Court Justices and plus two degrees Celsius, make this election far too critical for playing asinine games.

The video that Donal referred to in #18 illustrates Sanders's strengths and weaknesses. His criticisms of America's political and economic system are usually valid, and his proposals would improve the lives of many Americans. If I were able to vote, I would vote for either Democrat in the general election, and I would probably vote for Sanders in a primary, but I would do so with misgivings. I'm not convinced he'd be a good or effective president. In the interview Sanders was asked what demands he would make if he lost. With what I unfortunately have come to see as a fairly typical example of Sanders's lack of realism, he more or less demanded that a winning Clinton adopt his platform. As Donal inadvertently showed, some Sanders supporters are so immature and so extreme that even something as unheard of as this wouldn't be enough for them.

My perspective on the general election is this:

“The damaging climate consequences of carbon emissions will grow and persist for millennia without a dramatic new global energy strategy, according to a new set of research-based climate change scenarios developed by an international team of scientists.
Rising global temperatures, ice field and glacial melting and rising sea levels are among the climatic changes that could ultimately lead to the submergence of coastal areas that are home to 1.3 billion people today, according to the report, published online by the journal Nature Climate Change.”
https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/science-tech-and-health/earth-environm…- sustainability/climate-change-impact-report.html

Compared to this all other issues are consequential to the extent that they affect it. Single payer healthcare would be an advance, but if not enacted now, it could be enacted later. Action on climate change can't wait. We have already waited too long and we have already ensured that the future climate will be less amenable to existing life forms. We may already have triggered catastrophic tipping points. According to a group of climate scientists who have evaluated the presidential candidates, the differences between Clinton and Sanders are inconsiderable, but there's a chasm between them and their Republican opponents.
http://climatefeedback.org/how-much-do-the-us-presidential-candidates-k…

Click on Clinton. Then click See the candidate’s statements annotated by scientists. Then do the same with Trump. I have no doubt that some Sanders supporters, desperately in need of new brains for old, will still find convoluted ways to argue that there's no difference.

The asinine game is asking the working class to support the lesser of two evils for the benefit of the comfortable class, then watch as more living wage jobs are replaced by minimum wage and part time. Populism isn't going away, so a vote for Clinton is also a vote for the next strongman to come down the pike. And as far as Climate Change, 'clean' coal initiatives and half a billion unsustainably-manufactured Chinese solar panels don't reassure me.
doesn't have to

This is primarily about the decline of the American coal industry, but it also shows how vulnerable Clinton is to lies and distortions:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11278138/clinton-coal-gaffe
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/15/conservative-media-distort-…

I wonder if the anyone-but-Clinton Sanders supporters found the distortions so amenable to their confirmation bias that they here made common cause with the most reactionary elements of the American media, and the coal industry.

So, I've asked many times in different venues, so far with no answer:

Let's stop going back and forth on personalities and generalities, and discuss actual policies. Can anyone who is immersed in the Bernie campaign explain what all these great jobs the "job creator" is talking about are going to be? I ask the same of the Trump people; the results are likewise crickets.

Does anyone have the most basic understanding of economics and the intricacies of manufacturing? If we stop trading with Vietnam, are all these Bernie kids with college degrees/debt going to work on shrimp farms? Or Bangladesh-- let's see, these 50 year old white males for Trump are going to take up sewing t-shirts?

Look, the only solution is infrastructure and particularly changing the energy consumption/extraction paradigm. That means getting a SCOTUS that will not block EPA, and a Congress that will fund the effort.

Ain't gonna happen with lots of histrionic bickering.

Sanders' proposal is to spend a about a trillion on a WPA-like effort employing people to rebuild infrastructure:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/

Donal #31,

Show me the money.

I'm not "immersed in" anything aside from being a Bernie voter, but my belief is that no government has the power to create private-sector jobs; however, the choice of what regulations are placed on the market - there is NO such thing as a "free market" - certainly affects the number and type of jobs. This country built its domestic economy, many decades ago, partly with tariffs and protectionism. When you make it easier for the superrich to move jobs to low-wage countries with no environmental protections, import the goods made there and suck up the profits, they do so more often. It really is true that NAFTA cost American jobs.

You can sneer all you like about Bernie or Trump supporters working on shrimp farms or making T-shirts if we moved back towards protectionism, but what would be so terrible about that? Food and clothing are real needs. It happens that many of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost to outsourcing in the past few decades were in the textile and clothing industries. Those may not have been jobs you wish to do, but the people who lost them felt that they were worse off working 29 hours a week at a Mall-Wart, stocking shelves with clothes made in Asia that were cheaper, yet that they couldn't afford to buy.

Just saw today a figure that the 50th percentile male worker in America now makes about 4% less, adjusted for inflation, than in the early 1970s, whereas the 95th percentile worker makes over 50% more. The below-average-income worker is even worse off. Meanwhile, the expectations for spending have gotten much higher. It's not a pinko-lefty myth that forty years ago, the average blue-collar worker could support a family, have a house and a car and a few amenities. This was fact.

zebra: Tax "The 10%". More than enough. May need to cut it back to "The 1%", even.

The more important question you should be asking however, is "What will it cost if we don't repair and maintain our infrastructure."

The common thinking of "Oh, it will take care of itself" is bankrupt. The bills are coming due...

Brainstorms #34,

Show me the votes.

jane #33,

We need people who actually know how things work to make progress on progressive goals. You seem to get your ideas from blogs that are just as inaccurate as those dedicated to denying climate change.

Of course government can create private-sector jobs. Probably half the budget consists of defense spending, and a very big part of that consists of buying stuff from private companies. You didn't know that?

And it's true that in the past, a White Male could support a family. But you obviously don't know history beyond that little factoid. He could do that because women and minorities were excluded from the workforce. It had nothing to do with trade deals; all those guys defected from the Democrats when their unions (or connections) no longer provided them with a privileged position. That decline started long before NAFTA.

In those "glory days", men worked in unsafe factories that spewed out gross levels of pollution, consumed absurd amounts of energy, and produced really crappy products like autos and appliances that fell apart after a few years.

Personally, I have no desire to return to that Golden Age. We need people in office who can move us forward, and that means wheeling and dealing and compromising, not making grandiose and impractical promises.

We need people in office who are working for us.

BTW, Scott Adams is wrong about some things, but he's dead on here:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141657128476/the-sarcasm-tell-with-an-absu…

Heh! Ad hominem as a primary form of argument, false dichotomy, chronological snobbery - did I miss any?

There is a distinction between jobs supported by government spending of tax dollars, which may fund work done by government employees or (usually to our detriment) by contracted for-profit corporations, and jobs supported by individuals' economic activity. If a highway is repaired by a government employee or by a private company hired by the government, either way, it's government spending. If I pay the same private company to pave my driveway, that's private sector. You didn't know that???

Though there are scholarly studies on the detrimental effects of NAFTA that Hillary can't simply wish away, the grain of truth in what you say is that in the past, minorities and women were both discriminated against and underpaid, so wage-class black folks were much worse off than wage-class white folks. Economically, I do not accept that the gap could only have been lessened by reducing the latter to poverty wages as well. Politically, you can hardly expect that a white male who grew up in a stable, secure blue-collar household, who now sees his own family facing lifelong insecurity, will be adequately consoled by: "Your kids' poverty will be no worse than lots of black Americans have suffered for generations, so suck it up." It is not racist to wish that you could be sure of having a roof over your head this time next year. If you offer such a man no chance of restoring what he thinks of as a normal life, he will vote for someone who does. You might not like the outcome.

HuffPo is saying that new polls indicate that Hillary is losing the support of non-whites in the upcoming primaries/caucuses

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hillary-clintons-support-_b…

"Sanders pushed back against the 'Bernie or Bust' mentality last weekend, reminding supporters that it is 'absolutely imperative' to keep a Republican out of the Oval Office. Even Dawson, who delivered the night’s sharpest barbs against Clinton, chided the crowd when they booed the front-runner’s name. Later, after assuring the Sandersistas that they don’t 'have to vote for Hillary,' she immediately stipulated, 'this isn’t the general election. This is the primary.' ”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/sanderss-bronx-rally-shoul…

"It sounds partisan to say, but it remains true: The fate of humanity rests to a very large degree on keeping the Republican Party out of power for as long as possible."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/antarctic-study-gop-would-…

"When Al Gore ran against George W. Bush in 2000, some claimed that a vote for Gore was almost the same as a vote for Bush and encouraged people to cast protest votes for Ralph Nader. Sarandon supported Nader during that election. Bush became president, and what did we get? Two incredibly young, incredibly conservative justices, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who will be on the court for decades, and two wars — in Afghanistan and Iraq — that, together, lasted over a decade."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-or-bust…

You also got 8 years of climate inaction, tax cuts for the rich – including a temporary elimination of the estate tax – and the great recession. The Republican Party today is worse than the Party of 2000. Enabling a Republican victory or refusing to secure as big a Democratic victory as possible by not voting would be an act of incomparable stupidity.

...would be an act of incomparable treason.

There. Fixed that for ya. :^)

I wish you wouldn't say that. It's objectively true that voting for the GOP will harm the nation, but yelling "treason" at anyone whose political beliefs or values vary from one's own is an ugly right-wing habit.

Jane, you misinterpreted #41. Perhaps I should have lengthened the quote -- by two words:

... not voting would be an act of incomparable treason.

I, for one, would vote yea on a law to make voting mandatory, with financial penalties for failing to do so, and/or financial incentive for "doing one's civil duty".

I am/was not saying anything about WHAT they vote on/for. Vote your political beliefs, by all means. But VOTE, dammit, VOTE ! You betray the nation you live in if you don't. No excuses!

The reason for the "throwing under a bus" is that Clinton has never met a war that she did not enthusiastically support; and Trump has declared that he would not provoke war with Russia. Clinton has been endorsed by Ms "the sacrifice was worth it" Albright herself.

Clinton, simply, has a great deal of blood on her hands. Mainly the blood of poor, brown people. A number of left-leaning voters feel that that's more important than her second X chromosome.

Who won the New Hampshire primary?

gregladen — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:43:40 +0000

Who won the New Hampshire primary?

At about 9 PM eastern, with 90% of the votes counted in the Democratic primary, Sanders is showing a strong win. He is currently at about 60%, while Clinton is at 38%. That gap is significantly larger than what I had intuitively established at the cutoff for a Sanders "lower than expectation loss." So, congratulations Bernie Sanders! If those numbers hold, that is a decisive win.

(A lot of Sanders supporters were crowing about a 20% lead in the polls, which seemed kind of extreme at the time. They may end up being proven right!)

In the Republican primary, with about 90% reporting, Donald Trump has been declared the winner, with 35% of the vote.

Kasich is being declared second, with 16%

Then we have Cruz (11.6%), Bush (11.1%), Rubio (10.5%), and Christie (7.5%) followed by Fiorina and Carson (insignificant).

Note that the gaps between the third and lower candidates is so small that the sum of "write in" and lower level candidates that could not possibly have won is enough to have allowed for a strategic repositioning of second or third place.

gregladen Tue, 02/09/2016 - 07:43

Tags

New Hampshire primary

Rubio

Sanders

Trump

Apparently, this year Millsfield has joined Dixville Notch and Harts Location in the midnight voting tradition. All are towns with two-digit populations, so yes, too early to say much.

Drink the Stein ...

Here's Greenstein, for those interested. Seems to be a libertarian sort of some kind.

He is so libertarian he doesn't even have a link.

http://www.lfda.org/candidate/mark-stewart-greenstein

Don't matter what is said or decided NO rePUKEian will get my vote because even if he is a honest good dude he still has the women hating bigots behind him.
Anyone else even a nazis that seems to have some chance in winning will get my vote.

I wonder which flavor of Libertarian Greenstein is? Conservative who smokes weed, or channeling Ayn Rand?
Then there's Jill Stein, Green Party.

Greg: ahh -hemm. Updating vote totals I understand, but rewriting your analysis is a bit cheeky. I seem to recall a bit of a snide remark to the Sanders supporters and the notion of a possible 20 point victory in an earlier version of this page.

As I pointed out in one of the other threads, a month ago Clinton was leading Sanders in several of the NH polls. Few were talking about an easy victory as the 'favorite son' from next door Vermont at that time. Clinton also beat Obama in NH in 2008.

I did find it interesting that the latest PEW poll shows those under 30 with a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism - they gave the highest approval of socialism of any demographic grouping.

And while Clinton is trailing Sanders ATM by 20+ pts with 43% of the precincts reporting, she's actually a few hundred votes ahead of Trump. The Democratic meme tonight should be that Trump finished *third* - assuming Clinton can maintain her slight lead on him.

Kevin, kiss off :)

I have in the past aggregated my comments, but I had set up the formatting on this post so my aggregation became ridiculous. So, I did a rewrite. Then, I decided that this one time I'd just do that, rewriting this brief post as info came in.

Yes, there was a snide remark about my fellow Democrats who were crowing about a 20 point lead. They got their lead and good for them!

The real question, aside from your concerns about my methodology, is where did the lead come from, because the polls really didn't show that. Based on various polling and conversations in NH, it seems quite possible that there was an unusual mix of activity among independents, who make up the largest of the three primary voting blocks in New Hampshire. look forward to analysis of what went on there.

Good point about Trump coming in Third. That makes Rubio, what, sixth? Seventh???

Based on percentages with 89% reporting, Republicans got over 264,000 votes, while Democrats got over 231,000 votes. Both numbers will settle higher.

Outsiders Trump and Cruz lost 53% of the Republican turnout to establishment candidates. Outsider Sanders lost 40% of the Democratic turnout. So the outsider factor turned out to be much stronger on the left than on the right. Or, Trump has a lower ceiling than Sanders.

Trump manged a few thousand more than Hillary in the late results - so, he managed 2nd place after all :(

I haven't dug through all the demographic tabs, but that Bernie won the female vote rather easily (55%) also surprised me. NH has a miniscule African-American population and that will become important in the ensuing weeks - Clinton has consistently polled better than Sanders in that demographic.

Sanders meanwhile becomes the first Jewish candidate to win a Presidential primary and, as far as I know, the first Socialist.

I only mentioned the 'update' cuz I had a good zinger prepared in response - which became rather moot :)

"I only mentioned the ‘update’ cuz I had a good zinger prepared in response – which became rather moot :)" What was it???

I've not seen any ethnic breakdown for either Iowa or N.H. (very white places). I expect there will be some polling now in SC and Nevada. Actually, I just saw a poll from Nevada, but haven't looked closely.

Also a factor: How will labor break?

The biggest danger to American democracy isn't Donald Trump, but the Koch centered oligarchy that has taken over the Republican party. Trump has some very ugly positions, but he's also said things that challenge the Republican establishment from the left. His defense of eminent domain in relation to the Keystone pipeline was not something you would hear from a Koch Republican. He argued for a compassionate healthcare system that didn't let poor people die in the streets. He explained his conservatism by referring to the verb conserve. He defends social security. He attacks the pharmaceutical companies. In short, Trump's message is in many ways inimical to the donor dependent Republican mainstream. In addition, his victory will force the campaign to drag on, resulting in mutually harmful attacks and escalating expenses. I'm glad he won. The following excerpts from progressive journalists amplify my argument:

“In the brief period that the national political media has not been fixated on him, Donald Trump has undergone an important metastasis. His populist rhetoric has firmed up and identified a different and somewhat more specific band of enemies, including (but not limited to) oil companies, insurance companies, defense contractors, and wealthy “bloodsuckers” in general...

...The underserved political market is voters who want less libertarianism. They oppose free trade, want to keep every penny of promised Social Security and Medicare, distrust big business, think immigrants hurt the country, and generally distrust the rest of the world.
Trump’s campaign initially emphasized his nativist position on immigration, which caused him to be identified with the Republican right. But Trump has repositioned himself increasingly as the candidate of the populist, disaffected center. Even though Trump has proposed a huge tax cut for the rich, he draws support from Republican voters who are most heavily in favor of raising taxes on the rich. (They have no other candidates to choose from within their party.)

Trump’s populism has slowly intensified. "I don't get along that well with the rich. I don't even like the rich people very much," he recently said. "It's like a weird deal." He has proposed to let the federal government negotiate lower prices for Medicare prescription drugs, a plan horrifying to conservatives (and drug companies). Like other Republicans, he proposes to eliminate Obamacare and replace it with something undefined but wonderful. The reason Trump’s vague repeal-and-replace stance makes them so nervous is that he once advocated single-payer insurance, and he has emphasized, in a way other Republicans have not, the horrors of leaving people who are too poor or sick to afford insurance on their own. Trump’s shorthand description of the travails of the uninsured before Obamacare — people “dying on the street” — alarms conventional conservatives precisely because it captures the broad reality of the suffering that justified Obamacare in the first place, and which would intensify if the law is repealed. The Republican fear is that Trump’s vague promise to replace Obamacare with something terrific is not just a hand-waving tactic to justify repealing Obamacare. Their fear is that he actually means it. Trump's populist positions may place him farther away from the Republican Party's intellectual and financial vanguard, but they draw him closer to its voters.

The clearest sign of Trump’s intentions is the conscious fashion in which he has tried to co-opt the appeal of Bernie Sanders (who, like Trump, has opened up a populist attack on his party’s consensus). Trump’s argument is that he agrees with Sanders on trade, but only Trump can put his critique into practice.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-is-getting-se…

“In New Hampshire, an angry populist who calls for a revolution and assails the Washington establishment, special-interest lobbyists, big-money politics, and rapacious corporations won an election in a historic move that could shake up and remake American politics.

And Bernie Sanders did, too.”

“Most intriguing was his [Trump's] attack on the corrupt power elite. He started off this portion of his speech by bashing the Republican National Committee for handing out tickets to Saturday's debate to donors and special-interest lobbyists. (By the way, do you know that he "won" the debate?) And then Trump offered this assault on a "they" he didn't bother to identify:
They want to chop away at Social Security like they want to chop away at the Second Amendment [on guns]…like they're chopping away at Christianity. Very soon, we're going to start saying Merry Christmas."
That line about holiday greetings drew one of the loudest cheers of the night from the Trumpites. But here was Trump melding a Sanders-like populist proclamation (I won't let them weaken Social Security)...

...He next blasted big drug companies for hiring lobbyists and donating to politicians in order to prevent the government from negotiating lower drug prices. He pledged, "We want to take care of people without health care…the Republican way—if people can't help themselves, we have to help them. Those drug companies are going to hate me so much."
It's always unclear how much of what Trump does as a politician is planned. Is he driven by instinct? Does he cunningly calculate his moves? But by the end of the New Hampshire campaign, he had crafted an ideologically muddled populism with appeal mostly to conservatives but also to economically insecure independents who are pissed off at the powers that be, whoever the hell they are.”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/new-hampshire-primary-trump…

“Like other members of the Republican elite, the Koch brothers misjudged Donald Trump. They never considered the real estate scion a serious contender, and his politics on taxes, trade, and foreign policy clashed thoroughly with theirs. (Charles Koch noted that Trump’s Muslim registry, for instance, would “destroy our free society.”)
...the Kochs, after building a shadow party on the right, are now struggling to gain traction in a political landscape they have helped to bring into existence.

This election cycle was supposed to be the one in which the Koch network fulfilled its mission of installing a Republican in the White House. But that goal, and the millions behind it, are at risk. And before the Kochs begin to take on Hillary or Bernie, they are carefully considering whether to wage a war against Trump.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/koch-brothers-take-on-trump

It's far too early to say how the Republican race will pan out, and we don't know whether the great deal maker will end up making deals that accommodate the interests of the big-monied donors. But by the time it ends Trump will have inflicted considerable damage on the party's message and image.

As I noted in an earlier thread I think there are several things that work for Sanders in New England. New Hampshire has more college towns than people realize, and though they are small they add up, probably to low tens of thousands of votes for each party if you use the town populations. (Antioch is there, for instance, and UNH has several campuses -- there are actually about a dozen or so schools).

So that would work well for Sanders from the get-go. New Hampshire is also about as white as it gets.

I also take Sanders' victory (don't get me wrong, I'd prefer him over Clinton) with a large grain of salt. i looked at how much money he's raised in South Carolina and Nevada. It's not much. Like ~$60,000 not much in SC. That's so tiny it's ridiculous; Clinton outspends him and crucially, out-raises there by a factor of 10. I predict a crushing defeat in that particular state, even if by some miracle half of the black Democrats there vote for Sanders.

It's early in the race yet; Nevada is a caucus state which also has little that works in Sanders' favor. (The CWA and NNU aren't as big of a deal there).

The reason I am not thinking yet that this is a big win for Sanders is that Iowa and New Hampshire are about as UNrepresentative of the larger electorate as you can possibly be. Pick almost *any* demographic and both states are outliers. Especially compared to states that have a population that's bigger than that of say, Boston's Metro Area. Both Iowa and New Hampshire could fit comfortably in single districts of Chicago or New York.

So I am skeptical that this means as much as we might like. (Remember Paul Tsongas? Nobody else does, either).

What I am more confident about is that Sanders moves the party leftward a bit; at least when it comes to convention time.

On the GOP side it gets interesting because Trump clearly has solid support of the rank and file (I mentioned this a few threads ago here and can I crow a bit about being right?) but nothing from the elites of the party. The last guy who managed that was McGovern early in his campaign. (I can't think of anyone else whose endorsements came to basically zero at this point in the process -- only Sanders is paralleling that this time around).

And let's remember: the party basically abandoned McGovern. Trump could have a similar fate from the GOP side. A bad presidency could hurt the GOP worse than losing -- people still beat Dems over the head with Jimmy Carter (whose presidency, all things considered, wasn't terrible -- he just didn't have any major policy victories and voters who think bombing people makes their penises bigger hate him).

Anyhow, Trump's support cuts across many sectors of the party, and that's a bad sign for those of us who care about being non-sociopaths.

If Sanders wants to win either the nomination or the general election he has to give all those voters of color a reason to actually get up and vote. We'll see if he manages that.

One thing that struck me: Sanders would be the very first Jewish president. Who would have thought we'd elect a black guy before a Jewish guy? (Maybe that makes an odd kind of sense, since so many people assume Jews are loyal to Israel automatically -- leaving NYC is always weird to me that way, because I find myself doing a double take and asking myself "what year is this again?").

So with either Sanders or Clinton we get a first. Not bad, IMO.

For these reasons, I think that South Carolina will be a very interesting test. Clinton will almost certainly win there, but the split will matter a lot. What the percentages mean for the primary is probably not as important as how the demographics work out, like you suggest.

Yes, the first Jewish President thing is not lost on me. I think it is being underplayed because you don't have to say it out loud to count in favor, but if you say it out loud too much latent anti-Semitism may play a role.

He defends social security. He attacks the pharmaceutical companies. In short, Trump’s message is in many ways inimical to the donor dependent Republican mainstream.

Trump does say a great deal of things, borrowing from both sides of the political spectrum. The primary question is whether he actually believes in any of the things he says he supports and wants to do, or whether he is simply shrewd.

There is also the question of whether, even if he does feel strongly about these issues, and really would want to implement them if elected, he would be able to do any of them.

In my opinion, he may feel strongly about the more bigoted/racist positions he's spouted - but not the other social issues. I don't think the folks on the far right believe he is serious about those issues either: I can't see them supporting him if they thought he was serious about them.

#16
I can't judge Trump's sincerity, and I don't think it's particularly important. His rhetoric, sincere or not, is at odds with Republican orthodoxy, and it's causing problems for the party. The more progressive positions he's spoken out in favor of seem to be popular with a segment of Republican voters, and are not supported by any of the other Republican candidates, or the Kochs and Adelsons backing them. In effect, he's exposing the party's class interest and lack of concern for those who aren't wealthy. Some of his supporters have argued that Trump is more trustworthy because he isn't indebted to the big donors. The implication is that the others are less trustworthy, or untrustworthy.

#13 Correction
big-monied donors – big-moneyed donors.

"I don’t think it’s particularly important."

I would say it could be, if he could convince enough people that he means what he says to make to through the nomination process.

I don't know if he will keep his momentum or not, but on the Republican side it hardly matters: Cruz et. al. are no less crazy and potentially dangerous to the economy and civil system in the U.S. than Trump - they are simply better at hiding it.

#19

He doesn't have to convince people that he means what he says. Simply by confirming pre-existing beliefs, telling people what they want to hear, he's perceived as someone who “tells it like it is.” He doesn't need to argue or produce evidence. All he needs to do is produce the requisite stimulus. He doesn't need to be sincere. Reading his audience and reacting to its whims are enough. Eventually he'll probably have to explain how he intends to fulfill some of his promises, but remember: Richard Nixon claimed he had a plan to end the war in Vietnam. Nixon's claim was shrewd and expedient, and not at all sincere.

My view, as stated above (#13), is that the candidates that are in line with the donor oligarchy are more dangerous than Trump. They would find it easier to get elected, and they would be in greater agreement with a Republican congress. In that case the danger would be real, not potential.

Should note: saying that you want to protect Social Security doesn't make you a left-winger, after all every fascist government in Europe had some form of that. Trump is in many ways a classical fascist.

How? Let's count:

-- harking back to a mythical past? Check. ("Make America Great Again")

-- Xenophobia? Check

-- A lean to authoritarianism, a contempt for the legislative processes? Check

-- Appealing to the fears of those who feel disenfranchised, with a power base among said populations? Check

-- Cult of personality? Check

If it looks like a duck...

Trump is dangerous because every fascist aligns themselves with some segment of the elites of their country. That's how fascism works.

Trump is really, really dangerous because he hasn't got the slightest self restraint. I could see him ordering air strikes on some country to look "strong" -- and damn the consequences. And can you imagine how he might legitimize some pretty awful stuff if you are say, Latino? Muslim? "Hey, we went out and beat up a few Latinos with our minutemen pals, might have killed a few!" -- you think Trump would call for that person to go to jail, or do you think he'd say "welp, regrettable but they were just protecting what is theirs."

#21 Jesse - Trump meets a number of the fascist criterion set out by Dr. Lawrence Britt . Hyper nationalism, disdain for human rights, supremacy of the military, sexism, obsession with national security, labor suppression, disdain for intellectuals and the arts, obsessions with crime and punishment, cronyism and corruption. He does, however, fall down on a couple of key points, particularly his problems connecting successfully with some on the religious right, his war with the fossil fuel barons, and the fact that he hasn't yet had a chance to rig an election. Still I would definitely call him a fascistoid.

Is he really dangerous though?I think he isn't. Scary, but more a wanna be than a real threat IMO. The unwholesome values that he inherited from his grandfather aren't likely to work as well in a prosperous and diverse US as they did in an impoverished early 20th century Germany. Still, I think that we definitely do need to keep an eye on him, and we definitely need to make sure that he doesn't get to the White House. .

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary

gregladen — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:14:50 +0000

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary

I wrote about what I thought might happen in the New Hampshire primary a few days ago, but enough new stuff has happened to make it worth revisiting.

Who will win the New Hampshire GOP Primary?

And, perhaps more important, who will come in second, third, and fourth?

We know that Donald Trump will win the New Hampshire primary. Polls show him up far above the other candidates, he has been on a modest upward trend since the beginning of the year, and the most recent polls show an abrupt upward swing. He now stands at about 17% above the second place candidates.

New Hampshire seems to like Rubio and Cruz to about equal amounts, but has been showing a preference for the up and coming Rubio over the last week or so. But, Rubio's performance in the GOP debate is widely seen as abysmal, even embarrassing. The most recent polls seem to show a drop in Rubio's share since the debate. It looks like nothing more than a squiggle of the magnitude one expects in such polls, especially with so many candidates, but given the debate, it is quite possible that his support is rapidly declining.

So, even though Rubio's average poll rating over the last several days suggests he is a weak second place contender, I'm going to predict that he does not come in second place. I suspect Kasich and Cruz are tied for that honor, but Cruz has consistently polled ahead of Kasich, and seems to be preferred over other candidates, even Trump, in head to head polls among many New Hampshire voters. In other words, when supporters of Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Christie, and everybody else have their candidates taken away in a hypothetical, they break for Cruz, not Trump.

For this reason, I'm going to predict that Cruz will come in second. The amount of damage suffered by Rubio will determine if he comes in third, or possibly fourth behind Kasich. That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least until tomorrow night when we find out what actually happened!

Who will win the New Hampshire Democratic Primary?

All the numbers suggest that Sanders will win in New Hampshire, so that is pretty much settled. The question is, by how much. Sanders' lead over clinton has been steadily increasing in the Granite State since mid January, and it was starting to look like he could be way ahead of Clinton. But, as is the case with the GOP race, the last few days has shown a narrowing between the two candidates. The last few polls have them between 17 and 13 points or so apart, with the gap closing.

While everybody thinks their own candidate nailed the New Hampshire debate, the fact is that Clinton may have faired better, or Sanders worse. Sanders produced at least to really bad answers on foreign policy, and Clinton parried questions that has been raised about her fairly effectively. New Hampshire voters tend to keep themselves open until fairly late in the game, it is said, and these factors may influence the outcome.

If the gap closes to 10% or less, that is bad news for the Sanders campaign and good news for the Clinton campaign. If the gap ends up being around 13% plus or minus a few, then the message being sent by New Hampshire would be similar to that sent by Iowa: "You Democrats have two roughly equal candidates, carry on!" If the gap re-widens to beyond 15%, the there is evidence of a Sanders surge. If one take Iowa's message as also meaning "Sanders, previously low in polling, rose quite a bit before the caucus" and New Hampshire says something similar, then that would be a very strong message in favor of Sanders.

(We do not expect equal numbers in New Hampshire because of the modest favorite son effect.)

Stay Tuned.

gregladen Mon, 02/08/2016 - 07:14

Tags

New Hampshire primary

Rubio

Sanders

Trump

I think Trump may be blowing his lead. On the strength of his media identity, he's been running his campaign on the cheap. I think he will need a ground game to seal the deal. Cruz is too crazy, Rubio is too robotic, and Jeb! is too pathetic, but someone like Kasich could step in to the space left vacant by Trump's unfavorables.

I missed the debate, but the reviews I saw graded Hillary and Bernie about the same. I have Facebook friends that tend both ways. The Hillbots seem upset, while the BernFeelers seem enthused. From what I read, Bernie got a lot of donations after Iowa. If he's investing it in ground operations he couldn't afford before, he could hang around for a while.

I agree that Trump is not playing the ground game right, and that is why he lost in Iowa (as I predicted) . It will be interesting to see if that plays out in NH

The ground game is more important in a caucus, because it is more exposed to activists. But, NH primary voters also can see the ground game and pay a lot of attention to it, it is said. If Trump is not eating pancakes and kissing babies, they may well blow him off. That adds a real interesting element to what might happen.

The Republican debate wasn't kind to Cruz and Rubio. It drew more attention to Cruz's sanctimonious sleaziness, and Rubio succeeded in making a fool of himself. Rubio's been extremely good at delivering the messages that Republicans want to hear, but he does come across scripted, and in Manchester he was stuck on repeat. The problem is bigger than just talking points. Rubio speaks written rather than spoken English. His English is correct, but not natural. Note, for example, that there are many occasions where Rubio says it is or it has or it does not, where almost all native speakers would use contractions.

Re. Trump:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/koch-brothers-take-on-trump

Foreign policy:
Sanders has repeatedly criticized Clinton for her vote on the Iraq war, while emphasizing his own superior judgement. This seems to be his foreign policy Rubiot. When asked about the greatest current threats, his North Korea answer was what one might call a Ben Carson moment. When asked to name his foreign policy advisers, he couldn't name any:

"Asked recently to name his foreign policy advisers, he threw out a few names of people who later said they had barely discussed the issues with him. One of them was Benjamin J. Rhodes, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser for communications, who said he had given Mr. Sanders some standard briefings, but no advice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/us/politics/foreign-policy-questions-…

He doesn't even know enough to criticize Clinton for her reaction to the coup in Honduras or her relationship to Uribe in Columbia. He's never mentioned the possible implications of her ties to the Clinton Foundation, and its ties to repressive regimes. Where she represents tainted competence, he stands for uninterested ignorance.

But, NH primary voters also can see the ground game and pay a lot of attention to it, it is said.

Granted, I live in one of the bluest towns in the state, but Sunday morning was the first I saw any evidence of s ground game from a Republican (Jeb, of all people, had canvassers in my neighborhood). All of the Dems, including O'Malley, have been intermittently canvassing the neighborhood since November. There were even a couple of Clinton people in my neighborhood this morning as I was shoveling the driveway (about 0730),

My party affiliation had been undeclared before today, but when I voted this morning in the Democratic primary, I skipped the table where you can reclaim your unaffiliated status. The aggravation I've been getting from being on Republican mailing and phone lists is no longer worth it. I feel like I would need a hazmat suit to vote in the R primary, and I don't own one.

Lessons from the Iowa Caucus

gregladen — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:52:16 +0000

Lessons from the Iowa Caucus

Increasingly, I feel the need to declare my position on the candidates before commenting on the process, because, increasingly, the conversation has become one of comparative litmus tests. So, here's the deal on that: I like Clinton and Sanders both, and I like each of them for both overlapping and different reasons. As a life long Democrat I'm glad to see such good candidates running. I will decide whom to support in the Minnesota Caucus some time after I walk into the building, most likely. Then, later, I will decide which candidate, if any, I might work for during the time between our caucus and the convention, though most likely it will be neither. I don't have a lot of money to donate to anything, but so far I have split my financial support evenly. After the convention (or a bit before if there is a clear winner a priori) I will do everything I can to move the chosen candidate into the White House, while at the same time working on my Congressional District and state wide races or issues.

The first thing we learned from the Iowa Caucus is that Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate who can win. I didn't doubt that before, but his showing in Iowa, a statistical tie, demonstrates this. This is not really too important in the big picture, partly because it simply reifies what was already known, and partly because Iowa (and New Hampshire) provide only a part of information needed to think strategically about the process. The way things are set up, we really won't know until Super Tuesday, I think, how the two candidates stand. South Carolina may tell us something about the alleged demographic disconnect that favors Clinton over Sanders, and Nevada may show us if Unions matter in this election, and who they matter to. But from that perspective (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada) it will be very difficult to predict Super Tuesday's outcome.

But, here's the thing: Bernie supporters who have shown a great deal of angst and jitteriness, to the point of sometimes acting inappropriately for a Primary, can relax a bit now. Your candidate is for real, we all know this. And best of luck to you and to us all.

At the same time, Clinton supporters who may have viewed Bernie as an anomalous inviable insurgent now know that isn't true. This should have been obvious all along, but for the doubters, stop doubting.

The second lesson is a bit more complex. On one hand, Clinton should have done better in Iowa, given the demographic match up. This puts Clinton on notice. Every campaign is like a herd of bison moving across the plains, with each bison being unique and likely to go in any of several directions. The efficient campaign tends to ignore the bison that are going in the "right" direction (for that campaign) and focus on those that seem likely to stray. I think Iowa demonstrates that some of Clinton's bison need to have a good talking to.

On the other hand, the Sanders campaign makes the point that the #FeelTheBern surge will not only carry Sanders past the demographic disconnects he faces, but that it will sprout a long and stable coat tail to bring Congress with him. Did going from an obscure(ish) Senator from an obscure(ish) state to nearly besting The Anointed One (for good reason) in Iowa constitute a Bern-Surge? Or was it not enough? The turnout in Iowa was pretty good, but it was not Obama-esque. To the extent that Obama's 2008 campaign is a model for a 2016 Sanders campaign, something is lacking here. This may or may not be important.

One test of the surgosity of the Sanders campaign may be South Carolina and Nevada. He is unlikely to win in South Carolina and Nevada is obscure. But if he does way better than expectations, that might mean that the surge if getting fueled (by itself, as surges do). I suppose New Hampshire could also be an indicator. Sanders will likely win that state. Not because New Hampshire and Vermont are clones -- they are very different. But because among Democrats, Sanders will be seen as something of a favorite son. (New Hampshire and Vermont share a long border, but most cross-state interconnections, I think, are: Vermont-Update NY, and Vermont-Berkshires/Pioneer Valley, MA; and New Hampshire-Greater Boston Areas.) In any event, if Sanders does better than X percent over Clinton in New Hampshire, that could be a post-Iowa surge-fueling effect. X is probably around 12% .

On the Republican side, there are more lessons than I want or need to discuss, but I'll mention two. First, as per this item, no matter how out of the box some of this year's campaigns seem to be (i.e., Trump's celebrity approach), the political process is a real, living entity that can't be ignored. Trump risks loss for doing so.

See: Dark Money by Jane Mayer

The other major lesson, I think, is that the field is now much smaller than it used to be. I'm not sure if any of the bottom tier candidates can recover, however, New Hampshire might bring one or two back into the race. But right now, it is looking like Trump-Cruz-Rubio. I've seen some convincing commentary that Cruz is actually not viable long term. I don't know if I believe that, even if I can hope it to be so. So, the Trump Will Burn Out theory says that Rubio is the GOP nominee, and based on overall patterns, likely the next President unless the Democrats pull their heads out of each other's butts and start focusing on the end game. I suppose it could be worse.

gregladen Tue, 02/02/2016 - 03:52

Tags

New Hampshire primary

Rubio

Sanders

Trump

I suspect the "bottom tier candidates" are meant for PAC donation fodder, where people donating money have been deceived in to thinking the money is going to those candidates--- and the Republican Party is getting almost all of it. Carson exists as a "candidate" exclusively to funnel money from morons in to Republican Party candidates other than him.

My concern about the current elections is that on the Republican Party side there appear to be no actual adults offered as candidates. I keep expecting the RNC to step in and reveal their real candidates.

Let me throw out some additional thoughts (certainly re: NH-VT-MA, because I am from there).

New Hampshire and Vermont are very different, it is true -- New Hampshire was in many ways more semi-industrial, for instance. That said, the demographics in New Hampshire favor Sanders, and he's local. The similarities between New Hampshire and the towns along the North Shore and getting up into Lawrence and Lowell work for Sanders here too: a guy that does well among college students working in Boston is a pretty good bet, given that the whole city runs along the beat of the academic calendar.

Let's leave aside the famous Harvard and MIT which have a lot of out of staters. There's BU, BC, UMass Boston, Bowdoin, Suffolk U, Mass Art, Berklee, Northeastern, Wentworth, Emerson, Mt. Ida, and about two dozen others and that's just in the city environs. In New Hampshire there's Dartmouth and UNH and the latter serves largely students from the area (and from Massachusetts -- we used to joke that if you wanted to go to high school again UNH was the way to do it). The areas outside of Boston are pretty college heavy too, and in many cases have some cross-over appeal to non-college educated white workers, I think, since the families that send their kids to Salem State U aren't exactly affluent. (People who aren't from there often don't see the myriad small public and private schools that cater to a lot of first-generation college students).

So Sanders has a big built-in advantage in the most populous districts in Massachusetts, and a base to work from out west too. (Williams, for instance, is out in the Berkshires).

So I could see -- if everything breaks right for him -- Sanders making a hell of a showing in New Hampshire, Vermont (of course) and Massachusetts. I should also add Sanders would have some appeal in Connecticut and Rhode Island, though a bit less. New England doesn't get you a ton of delegates but it was in some ways the "soul" of the Democratic party in the Northeast, punching above its weight; the party elites take what goes on there seriously enough that they might take steps if things don't go their way. (See: 2006, and what they did to Ned Lamont).

Outside of that Sanders is going to have some problems. He hasn't connected super well to nonwhite voters, and the behavior of a few of his supporters has been a real problem -- he needs to get the campaign on message and disciplined in a way that I suspect is a bit foreign to him if for no other reason than the sheer size. My own hypothesis is that the BernieBro phenomenon comes from relatively new activists -- people who aren't and haven't been terribly relevant to the progressive movements before but got a platform and ran with it. Unfortunately they are the ones who didn't have a nice sit down with the adults.

There's a whole other discussion here about the role of social media and all that. But getting back to Sanders: he needs to give nonwhites a reason to vote for him, and he hasn't, not really. His missteps with Black Lives Matter hurt him there. And as far as I know he has done zero outreach to Latino voters.

So I see Sanders as one who will do well in states where white-er progressives dominate -- Oregon, perhaps. Wisconsin. He will falter in states where they don't (Illinois, California). The latter are where the delegates are, and we haven't even gotten to the fact that a load of endorsements have gone to Hillary Clinton from the get-go.

Jesse, excellent analysis.

However, I disagree with one (not very important) point. Harvard is not as out of region as most people assume. When I worked/went to school there, I was surprised to learn what a large percentage of Harvard College students were from within 100 miles. Very large (can't remember). Among staff, 100% local, among faculty, very very local compared to what one might think, because of the relatively concentrated and insular nature of the academic community. Harvard is like the Yankees. Every academic department in the country with more than 15 people in it has at least one Harvard PhD, but at home, not so much the reverse.

Graduate school is the reverse, of course. In my program, counting the year before, mine, and the year after, to get up a good number, I think there were exactly two of us who were local, and I was actually form NY originally.

Thanks. I wasn't thinking that Harvard is that non-local -- lord knows in high school it was the go-to "reach" for every smart kid (sometimes I think the Valedictorian of every school in Massachusetts is contractually obligated to apply). Just that every time you mention schools in Boston people from outside the region say "Harvard" and "MIT" even though the numbers of students there relative to everywhere else is tiny. Both schools -- MIT even more so -- pride themselves on geographic diversity too, though as you note that doesn't always happen.

(There's a whole rant I could get into about the way Harvard chooses students that privileges people who are descendants of the "right" people, even decades after they dropped Jewish quotas and the like).

Further to the question of relating New Hampshire (my adopted home state) to the neighboring states: Southeastern New Hampshire is officially part of Greater Boston. But the bedroom towns in that part of the state is where you find the Tea Party types (it's not exactly rational, since tax-wise, they get the worst of both worlds: Massachusetts income tax and New Hampshire property tax), just as you find such people in exurban areas elsewhere in the country. Democrats are mostly concentrated in a few towns: Portsmouth/Dover/Durham area, Nashua, Concord, and to a lesser extent Manchester and Exeter. But north and west of Concord, it is very much like Vermont, and to a lesser extent western Maine. In particular, the Democratic primary electorate in those areas will be quite similar to Vermont's. Dartmouth is an anomaly (it's more of an Ivy League type environment), but it isn't big enough to make that much of a difference beyond Hanover and neighboring towns.

"The first thing we learned from the Iowa Caucus is that Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate who can win."

Sanders could win the nomination, but the election? It's possible that his candidacy could inspire many who otherwise wouldn't vote. I don't believe that he could inspire enough to elect a House and Senate that would support his agenda. What worries me most is the ability of the Republicans to attack Sanders as a socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle class. To me, the combination of socialism and higher middle class taxes in an American election doesn't look like a winner.
I hope I'm wrong.

Each of the two remaining Democratic candidates have a huge question mark behind their names when it comes to a general election. Question marks that don't always come front and center in a party primary.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Hillary Clinton is a Clinton.

I'm not sure which is the larger cross to bear. Intuitively I'd say it's the 'socialist' tag that Republicans will try to beat Sanders with, but given the political atmosphere it might actually be an advantage.

Similarly the name 'Clinton' will just cause some voters to foam at the mouth - not all of them rabid Republicans. Yet, this too could be an advantage for Hillary; the Democratic Party almost by necessity requires a large African-American turnout to win elections in toss-up states. Other than Barack Obama, can anyone generate more excitement and approval in the African-American community than Bill Clinton?

Given what's presented on the GOP side, any Democrat that wouldn't fully support either Bernie or Hillary in the general election is a fool.

cosmicomics: "Sanders could win the nomination, but the election?" That depends on how he does in the other primaries. Each primary is a test of part of that question.

Kevin, it is not clear to me either which is the more relevant negative.

Jesse, don't forget Franklin Pierce, Keene State and St Anselm! I had a GF who went to Pierce - she was a Westwood chick who called the locals, "Humps from New Humpshire." I lived in Manchester for several years, and one of my friends taught at St A. Then I briefly lived in Keene and they called the Vermonters, "Woolly Bears." One of my favorite things to do in Keene was take the short drive to Brattleboro.

If Sanders and Trump supporters could somehow find common cause, they would be a force to reckon with. One of my work buddies swears that there's a stat that a lot of people are picking Trump and Sanders as their first and second choices right now. No matter what the media say about Iowa, people still want a change.

Donal--
Honestly I doubt Trump and Sanders voters have a lot in common, ultimately.

The polling crosstabs show that Sanders does well among (relatively) educated white liberals, with some crossover to nonwhites with college degrees. Trump is appealing to those without the degrees -- your non-college white workers.

This isn't to say that there are no non-college educated white workers who support Sanders -- he has the backing of several unions. But the idea that the two groups would somehow make common cause over dissatisfaction with the status quo is farfetched to me.

Trump's appeal is to a really nasty xenophobic streak. Those folks will not go near anyone who says they want to help people if it looks like people of color might be helped as well. This is a fundamental political reality that has existed for decades. One reason some welfare programs were attacked was precisely because they aided people of color. (Remember the "welfare queen?")

So no, I just don't buy the two groups coming together very much at all, except at the margins maybe.

Jesse, I think what Sanders and Trump supporters have in common is that they are being left behind in the economy. Yes they identify very different groups as the enemy. Trump voters blame immigrants while Sanders voters focus on the 1%. But I think they both suspect that the top 25% are also complicit in their fate. The top 25% support establishment candidates like Clinton and someone who isn't Trump or Cruz. I don't see nativists and millennials making common cause in this cycle, but it could happen eventually.

Who Will Win The Iowa Caucus?

gregladen — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:36:33 +0000

Who Will Win The Iowa Caucus?

The answer: One Republican and One Democrat/Independent.

The Iowa Caucus is pretty much up for grabs in both parties. Over recent days, a clear Trump lead has been erased, and Cruz is now ahead in recent polls. Over roughly the same period, a clear Clinton lead has been erased, and Sanders is now ahead in recent polls.

FiveThirtyEight (Nate Silver) is still predicting a Clinton victory for the Dems, but a Cruz victory for the GOPs. The Clinton victory prediction is of high confidence, while the Cruz prediction is not, and Trump is close behind.

One way to look at the polls is to track changes and put a lot of faith in the most recent information. Another way is to use as much data as seems relevant (even looking outside polls) and assume that this gives a better prediction, and go with that. The latter is the method used by FiveThirtyEight. So, Nate Silver's method will be a big winner if Clinton and Cruze cinch the Caucus, but not so much if Sanders sandbags Hillary and Trump trumps Cruz.

People put a lot of significance on the Iowa Caucus because it is the first real contest among candidates. But then, after the caucus has become history, they are less likely to care too much about it. How important is it as a predictor of the outcome of the entire primary season?

That depends on the party.

Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter and George McGovern all won the Iowa caucus (or came in above the other candidates) and went on to be the Democratic Party nominee. Dick Gephardt and Tom Harkin also won the caucus, but did not become the nominee. One might say that the Iowa Caucus predicts the nominee pretty well for Democrats.

Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush all beat the other contenders and went on to get the nomination. But most of the time, the Iowa Caucus was either won by an unopposed Republican (so we can't count those years in assessing its significance) or was won by a candidate other than the eventual nominee (such as Rick Santorum in 2012, Mike Huckabee in 2008, and Bob Dole in 1988). Overall, the Iowa Caucus means little in the Republican Party, if we go on history, especially in recent years.

Despite FiveThirtyEight's claims, based on a good analysis of hefty data, I'm going to say that there has been too much flux in the polling numbers to call the caucus at this stage, just over a week prior.

gregladen Fri, 01/22/2016 - 02:36

Tags

This morning one predictions market for Iowa has Ms. Clinton 4% lower than Senator Sanders. The fascist with a tribble on his head leads Cruz.

Despite FiveThirtyEight’s claims, based on a good analysis of hefty data, I’m going to say that there has been too much flux in the polling numbers to call the caucus at this stage, just over a week prior.

Agree. Also: I have to admit I'm not sure why Trump thought bringing in Palin, someone who now seems to be universally viewed as a candidate who failed because she deserves to be, would help. I'll be interested to see how (or whether) her support influences his numbers.

Where Clinton is at in Iowa right now it altogether too reminiscent of where she was there in 2008.

The first hint will be when I walk into the building at my caucus location. In 2008 there was excitement in the air. You could almost feel it. Lots of young(er) people participating too. We'll see what this year brings. If I had to place a wager..... I would guess Hillary and Trump will win. My wife and I will be caucusing for Bernie.