Democratic Primary https://scienceblogs.com/ en If Bernie Sanders was Playing Poker He Would Not Fold https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/06/11/if-bernie-sanders-was-playing-poker-he-would-not-fold <span>If Bernie Sanders was Playing Poker He Would Not Fold</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Since 1968, about 17 candidates ran in Democratic primary races and earned enough votes (above about 20% all told) to count as having been contenders. </p> <p>Of those, one was murdered, one was shot but lived, one was eliminated from competition by GOP dirty tricks, and one left the race because of insufficient support but would probably have been exposed as having two families (that would have been a scandal) had he stayed in the race. </p> <p>Putting this another way, there is about a 24% chance that a Democrat running in a primary will be taken out of the race for extrinsic reasons. </p> <p>Given the stakes, i.e., becoming the most powerful person of the 7 billion on Earth, one would probably stay in the race if one is in second place. </p> <p>I should note that the gunning down of candidates has not happened in a while, and those early events caused a significant increase in security. Dirty tricks are still a possibility, and we may have seen that in this year’s race, but if so, they were against Clinton, not Sanders. Scandalous behavior wiping out a candidate is unlikely this year as well. Clinton has been more heavily vetted than any candidate in history, and unless Sanders' tax returns turn out to actually be interesting (we’ll probably never know), he seems fairly scandal free.</p> <p>But, the odds is the odds, and since the modern system of primaries emerged, which could be dated to 1968, your opponent has only a 76% chance of survival even if you do nothing. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Sat, 06/11/2016 - 14:02</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/bernie-sanders" hreflang="en">Bernie Sanders</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016-0" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471888" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465670045"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Why would Sanders fold until he's extracted (or at tried to extract) some political concessions from Clinton, whether these be generally shifting her platform towards the left or specific policy pledges? As long as he remains civil and doesn't burn bridges, Sanders loses nothing by staying in with only one primary remaining.</p> <p>I assume, as have most people by their lack of discussion of the scenario, that he will neither ask or be considered for the VP slot.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471888&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_pEj3P1o1pSv9N20z7oOM-k-0PGBjlZkm5_zJQ_tyUA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Magma (not verified)</span> on 11 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471888">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1471889" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465675592"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>He get go ask to be VP. </p> <p>That decision is usually made after an ad hoc committee set up by the candidate goes through a process, and that hasn't started yet. </p> <p>One thing we know for sure about that is that speculation or analysis is almost always wrong. It is totally possible that Sanders will be asked. Or not. </p> <p>As far as extracting concessions, I think he's got all he's going to get now. He won't get more by damaging the process or the party. Simply staying in does not do that, but there are scenarios where he benefits by stepping aside before the convention.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471889&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tSFXHT-ZH4xP-GrD4Te_8K_HYMXdTK8DZzGVIt2HxDs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 11 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471889">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471890" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465682439"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg - I would disagree with your characterization of this campaign's 'dirty tricks.' If there was one on the Democratic side it was Clinton surrogates swiftboating Sanders on the civil rights issue. This was particularly important since - as we noted months ago - the African-American vote is crucial for a Dem. Presidential nominee.</p> <p>To this day you can find numerous stories about how Bernie Sanders is 'only' the candidate of white liberals or progressives. To the extent this is true, it is in large part because his exemplary record and personal involvement on the front lines of the civil rights battles of the 60s has been ignored by the media whereas the attacks on him have been promoted.</p> <p>To some extent I hold the Sanders campaign responsible, but most Democrats simply aren't well-equipped to play that game. </p> <p>As for scenarios where he benefits by stepping aside before the convention; yes, once he's received consolation prizes / assurances from the party or winning candidate. At his age there's little danger in turning party apparatchiks against him. I doubt he's going to be in another Presidential race. There's little point in his bowing out with grace if he can fight to build a movement instead of one-cycle footnote.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471890&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gQsq3E05qQLD0ouMxcJCAt41ct2MZl8aQOAu27x3M98"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 11 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471890">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471891" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465690709"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thought, as it were, on this from a northern neighbour</p> <p>There are still close to 2.5 Million ballots to be counted in California. Of those 2.5M 1,801,816 are vote-by-mail ballots, and 705,489 are provisional ballots. Bernie should do nothing until all those ballots are counted (CA counts provisional ballots) he could end up winning CA which would change the flavour of the campaign, or at least give him considerably more leverage at the convention. He is however bucking a party that has so far removed itself from its working class, populist roots that it refused to have a national union representative sit on the platform committee. Think about that for a bit. Was it petty sophomoric revenge on the part of the DNC because Bernie's suggestion was for the leader of a major union that supported him instead of Hillary (and as it was the nurses union that was a real blow to Hillary given most nurses are female) , that would be the kind interpretation, or was it an admission that the party now courts the 1% and sees them as more useful in the race for power than those who built the party. </p> <p>The Democratic Party leadership have blinders on (or at least are acting as though they do.) They are all set to piss off the a considerable percentage of the single biggest voting bloc - Independents - and likely the majority of what is now the largest generational cohort of voting age - the Millennials. They do this at their own risk.</p> <p>Or, as Matt Taibbi put it the other day in <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609#ixzz4BLYrjGb8">Rolling Stone</a></p> <p><i>"But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).</i></p> <p>Note that 30% fewer number for CA and the fact that there re still all those ballots to be counted, a large portion of which are from independents and, yet again, Democratic voters whose names had been dropped from the rolls.</p> <p>Stay the course Bernie, to do otherwise would be to destroy this beautiful movement you helped to fire up, by sucking all the air out of it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471891&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GHxcYHloY9KCoDZZMSEtDHpt7ph0o1I05nnbwks6ZGs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Douglas Alder (not verified)</span> on 11 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471891">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471892" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465713034"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Dirty tricks are still a possibility, and we may have seen that in this year’s race, but if so, they were against Clinton, not Sanders"<br /> What do you base that on?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471892&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Il4I8QQvno2NRVCkqCdnTHFD_6uyH1Yo2AwhJ9IDTOM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Lee Grove (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471892">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1471893" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465719985"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The "dirty tricks" to which I refer were by the GOP and against Clinton.</p> <p>Nobody in the Democratic Primary race, on either side, was engaged in dirty tricks against anyone.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471893&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cbi5fRtImDNAhbLVztxMAX-GrZKvVZeNnyIpz94C-XE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471893">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471894" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465721477"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yes, let's get those votes counted, and the provisional ballots from independents who claim they had their votes stolen. it's quite likely these will increase rather than decrease Hillary's percentage, but the conspiracy ideation and hatred coming from Bernie extremists is a distraction (only a few, but they are loud and in some cases nasty; for example I'm a "shill" and "bought and paid for" because I switched from Bernie, whom I like, while I still have worries and hopes about some of Hillary's stuff, I just think she's potentially quite good).</p> <p>Elizabeth Warren is now being accused of being a traitor, though to me it appears she has not changed a bit.<br /><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/9/1536781/-The-predictable-happens-Elizabeth-Warren-s-FB-page-fills-with-angst-from-Bernie-supporters">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/9/1536781/-The-predictable-happens…</a></p> <p>I think it unlikely to the extreme that Bernie would be offered or would accept Vice President. He went a bit over the edge in his one note accusations and will need to find - or be given - a dignified exit strategy. I think we will hear from him after the DC primary.</p> <p>Makes sense to me, and I wish Clinton's strategists and supporters and the press had respected this, to let everyone vote first. The AP jump last Monday was irritating in the extreme, and I was glad to hear it had not come from her people. So unhelpful.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471894&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lvBiuEtIDtK4eRW17ct34wJwOukfR-8M6af-QDfZNDY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471894">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471895" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465721806"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Voter suppression is a Republican specialty. I studied this hard starting just before Bush 1. But I would not rule out something weird (not from Hillary, but from local pols) about that thing in Brooklyn. I would like to see an explanation, because over 125,000 people purged was sickening.</p> <p>I'm using a conservative source because the conspiracy ideation is over the top:<br /><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-voters-report-irregularities-at-poll-sites-1461085618">http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-voters-report-irregularities-at-po…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471895&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uecAuQ9jRUSuEGV-qBgUr_UFifWdEKHd-ObdngE1vN8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471895">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471896" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465727395"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>From Mother Jones, February 11, 2016<br /><b><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/john-lewis-bernie-sanders-civil-rights">Civil Rights Hero John Lewis Slams Bernie Sanders</a></b></p> <p>"<i>Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the progressive icon who led the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) during the civil rights movement, on Thursday dismissed Sen. Bernie Sanders' participation in that movement.</i></p> <p>When a reporter asked Lewis to comment on Sanders' involvement in the movement—Sanders as a college student at the University of Chicago was active in civil rights work—the congressman brusquely interrupted him. "Well, to be very frank, I'm going to cut you off, but I never saw him, I never met him," Lewis said. "I'm a chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved in the sit-ins, the freedom rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery, and directed their voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton."</p> <p>This is just one article on John Lewis slamming Sanders on the Civil Rights issue. This same story was picked up by dozens of magazines and newspapers. Hundreds of stories were written. Sanders was damaged within arguably the most important demographic of the race (sic).</p> <p>Of course the truth of the matter is a completely different story. Hell, Hillary was a 'Goldwater Girl' and John Lewis never met either of the Clintons until the 1990s while Sanders was arrested in the 60s protesting on the frontlines. No matter. Damage done. If you characterize swiftboating as a dirty trick, then this was one. And it came directly out of the Lee Atwater, Karl Rove playbook. </p> <p>I spent years working for the Democratic Party and Democratic Party candidates. If you like hotdogs you may not want to know how they are made. <a href="http://billmoyers.com/story/wasserman-schultz-has-a-change-of-heart-but-too-little-too-late/">Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Dan Malloy?</a> I must admit to having some sympathy with my Marxist/Socialist friends that simply <a href="http://dreamcafe.com/2016/05/30/an-open-letter-in-response-to-the-anti-trump-petition/">refuse to sign on to supporting many Dem. Party candidates</a> - even with Trump looming in the distance.</p> <p>It's very difficult to argue convincingly with those that take the 'a pox on both their houses' stance.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471896&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WrDMMEhQ0LHSqxRZKMiIYqW6H3OEnSYaIvizvkTW6E0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471896">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471897" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465736107"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ummm....</p> <p>In what delusional scenario exactly would Sanders ever be the nominee, given that 57% of Democrats voted against him?</p> <p>I think there are lots of people out there who still haven't quite grasped the concept of a, you know, "democratic" process?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471897&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kG3vQAd4d0FPWQj7K949How7KWg0lE1Wjn-z697tRxo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471897">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471898" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465737218"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jesse Jackson's endorsement strikes the right notes: </p> <p>“Jackson said he had the 'highest regard for Bernie,' recalling Sanders's support for him during his own presidential campaign, and praising Sanders for his work on Wall Street reform and for a $15 hourly minimum wage.<br /> 'The campaign is technically over, but the crusade is not,' Jackson said. 'I support Hillary’s campaign and Bernie’s crusade, and they are reconcilable.' "<br /><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/11/hillary-clinton-picks-up-another-big-endorsement/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/11/hillary…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471898&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-9HsKEnvsH1l5O4KT5lUG-jwKwNsw_W4jvCSBZc83Dc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471898">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471899" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465737433"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#11</p> <p>This is what a quick Google search led to:</p> <p>“Bernie was 23 in 1964. A young civil rights idealist.  Hillary canvassed for Goldwater. At 16. But age 20 in 1968, Hillary put on a black armband the day after MLK was assassinated and initiated a civil rights movement at Wellesley College. She led demonstrations and a drive to force the school to recruit more black students. <br /> Also at age 20, she denounced the Republican Party as being racist, after she attended the RNC convention in Miami...”<br /><a href="https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/4/1495575/-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-Civil-Rights-Era">https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/4/1495575/-Hillary-Clinton-in-the…</a> </p> <p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional-black-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement">http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional…</a> </p> <p>Goldwater was a result of Clinton's family background. What deserves respect is that she broke away from that for all the right reasons. I don't find Lewis's attempt to excuse his disavowal of Sanders totally convincing, but I don't know if you can blame that on “the Clinton campaign.”</p> <p>I support Sanders's aims and i find that his criticisms of Clinton are often valid:<br /><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/">http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-20…</a><br /><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/">http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-w…</a><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg</a></p> <p>On the other hand:<br /><a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy…</a> </p> <p>But, of course, if you reject Clinton you can vote for a successful businessman who'll “make America great again.”<br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think">http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-t…</a><br /><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald…</a><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.h…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471899&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="K5hk5jqyPcotJmJaGhXwde6H4E3h6st5chp9Dt2Jn9Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471899">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471900" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465742333"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmic - I think you missed the point. As you wrote, "Bernie was 23 in 1964. A young civil rights idealist." Yes, and he was arrested for his civil rights protests -- like many others. Compare this to Lewis' statement. After dismissing Sanders involvement he said: "<i>“I’m a chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved in the sit-ins, the freedom rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery, and directed their voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton.”</i></p> <p>Lewis certainly implies that he met the Clinton's during his time as chairman of the SNCC (1963-66), but not Sanders. Yet she was still a Republican then and I can't find anything that shows Bill was active on civil rights during that era either. Sanders was there. In books Lewis recalls first hearing of (Bill) Clinton during the 70's. and that he first met him in the 1990s. And please note, I didn't attack or condemn Clinton for her views during the early mid-60s. Neither has Sanders. Jumping to her defense is rather ... ummm... defensive ::)</p> <p>Hillary's great advantage was being the spouse to America's "first Black President" -- this gave her an immense inroad into an important demographic. Sanders civil rights record should have been at least a partial solution to that predicament. Instead we have John Lewis essentially calling Sanders a liar about his civil rights record. Indeed, some pundits immediately came out with that slant - going so far as to claim that photos of Sanders during some of the protests weren't even actually Sanders.</p> <p>Take an opponent's strength and attack it with lies, half-truths,and innuendo. That is the essence of swiftboating. If the attacks come from "someone that was there" they become even more believable - especially if it's someone outside the candidate's campaign. Please differentiate the Lewis attacks on Sanders civil rights record versus any classic case of swiftboating?</p> <p>You've recently cited Jesse Jackson. What did Jackson say on this issue and Lewis' remarks?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471900&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Es7avt_WbWgG9TS2M_7ABcNzgocv4P7LGERa_WtX2lU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471900">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471901" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465746704"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Kevin O'Neill,</p> <p>You obviously have not spent a lot of time closely interacting with African-Americans. </p> <p>I know exactly what Lewis was saying, because I was a bright, naive, idealistic Brooklyn boy just like Bernie in those days, but my understanding matured, thanks to some honest communication from actual Black men (and women, later on). </p> <p>"Protesting" does not get you respect. Getting arrested doesn't get you respect. Do you seriously think getting arrested as a white middle class activist impresses young Black males?</p> <p>Showing respect gets you respect. </p> <p>Looking at the Sanders campaign, it was obvious Bernie never learned that lesson, so he couldn't pass it on to his supporters. Difficult to learn that lesson when you run away to Vermont.</p> <p>The Clintons showed respect. In the 1990's, when it mattered. That's what Lewis was saying, when he said he met them.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471901&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SOO9mrU9gJL-Gwbn1XtNauLOmOcqdk42QtKeC9UgrMk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471901">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471902" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465749572"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>zebra - Yes, obviously Jesse Jackson isn't an impressionable African American male. I'm sure he agrees with you 100% - NOT!</p> <p>Buy a clue, clown.</p> <p>And, it does NOT answer the swiftboat charge. Instead you write an incoherent slander on Sanders. Go read about Willis Wagons in Chicago and when and where Sanders was arrested. The Chicago Tribune even managed to dig up some old photos.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471902&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="2qKBjIH_WdHjexqD3nUkI987r92VaX85sNTZdToYmvk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471902">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471903" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465788146"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#15<br /> "I think you missed the point."</p> <p>You may have overlooked this:</p> <p>I don’t find Lewis’s attempt to excuse his disavowal of Sanders totally convincing, but I don’t know if you can blame that on “the Clinton campaign.” #14</p> <p>"Of course the truth of the matter is a completely different story. Hell, Hillary was a ‘Goldwater Girl’ and John Lewis never met either of the Clintons until the 1990s while Sanders was arrested in the 60s protesting on the frontlines." #11</p> <p>This harmonizes poorly with this:</p> <p>"And please note, I didn’t attack or condemn Clinton for her views during the early mid-60s." </p> <p>Identifying Clinton as a 'Goldwater Girl" without supplying context and additional information is cherry picking designed to portray her as negatively as possible.</p> <p>It also harmonizes poorly with this:</p> <p>"He [Lewis] added: “My point was that when I was doing the work of civil rights, led the Voter Education Project and organized voter registration in the south in the 1970s, I did cross paths with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the field. They were working in politics, and Bill Clinton became attorney general of Arkansas in the 1970s as well."<br /><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional-black-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement">http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional…</a></p> <p>From which books do you conclude that Lewis first met Clinton during the 90s. I don't find that credible. </p> <p>If you've checked my links I think you'll find that I don't reflexively defend Clinton, but that I'm willing to when I find attacks against her unreasonable, and I don't think making her worse than she is is constructive. Or honest.</p> <p>"You’ve recently cited Jesse Jackson. What did Jackson say on this issue and Lewis’ remarks?" #15</p> <p>I have no idea. I'm more interested in seeing the Republicans defeated than I am in possible dirt digging.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471903&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UA7ByfkVIGKX4JvTZYq4Xp9_IMKeKC5ruSJK7UZrr5s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 12 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471903">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471904" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465806454"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Not being a fan of lost causes, it is my recent understanding that Bernie is not folding before the convention; that might change. But since it's the case, and there's a lot about both of them that I both like and dislike, it will be necessary to deconstruct some of the more egregious distortions and focus, like the NYTimes did yesterday, on the dishonesty and awfulness of Trump.</p> <p>About Hillary's early history, here's her graduate speech:<br /><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/06/listen-hillary-clinton-commencement-speech-wellesley/Qpy945dVq1PPjmj7AmUbTO/story.html">http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/06/listen-hillary-clin…</a></p> <p>Here's a more sympathetic take:<br /><a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy…</a></p> <p>I think Kissinger is awful, and Wasserman-Schultz problematic.</p> <p>As for the money thing, why is Hillary so much more targeted than every other senior politician who gives paid speeches? Why is all the good the Clinton Foundation does ignored? Why is it assumed that she kowtows to the people who paid for in the face of evidence to the contrary?</p> <p>Her voting record, for heaven's sakes. Her work on universal health care in the 90s. She was the <i>subject</i> of Citizens United and has vowed to do what she can to undermine it.</p> <p>What the Clintons did to recapture our Democracy from Reagan Bush would, ideally, not be good enough. But we are actually more polarized and targeted by Republicans, who are better unified, now.</p> <p>At the very least, please vow to <b>vote in every midterm</b>. Neither Bill Clinton nor Obama should be victim-blamed when we failed to support them due to inattention, fighting with each other, and perfectionism.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471904&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3WWD823bFWWPgp0_Wx09JTbuUoSBUC92fBUVHwq-v5o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 13 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471904">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471905" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465824113"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#19<br /> "As for the money thing, why is Hillary so much more targeted than every other senior politician who gives paid speeches?"</p> <p>Because of the timing – after the financial crisis.<br /> The venue.<br /> The amount she received for so little work, at a time when many Americans were struggling to make ends meet.<br /> Her unwillingness to release the transcripts, which unfortunately will make it harder for her to argue that Trump should release his tax returns.<br /> The fact that she's seeking the presidency and that her opponent had avoided her avoidable mistakes.</p> <p>There's a New Yorker podcast, Hillary's Dilemma, that expresses the incredulity one can have in relation to her Goldmann Sachs speeches. The section starts around 10:50.<br /><a href="http://www.wnyc.org/shows/new-yorker-political-scene/2">http://www.wnyc.org/shows/new-yorker-political-scene/2</a></p> <p>Ignoring her mistakes would be wrong, and so would reducing her to those mistakes. Here's another sympathetic portrait of her political development. It's also interesting because it shows the extent to which she already then was seen as a leader.<br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-activism-and-hillary-clinton-at-wellesley">http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-activism-and-hillary-clint…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471905&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tWIGXDg_sBmvvxiO2S0ncPO1yfEN98fgunVSJgAjP-k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 13 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471905">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471906" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1466360602"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>zebra writes: "<i>From which books do you conclude that Lewis first met Clinton during the 90s. I don’t find that credible.</i></p> <p>You don't? Why not? Apparently you've bought the story hook,line, and sinker.<br /> You're smarter than that. It takes literally seconds to find the references with Google. </p> <p>john lewis first met bill clinton</p> <p>You'll find dozens of stories that recite this Lewis quote from <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=EVdrKWADFnsC&amp;pg=PA317&amp;lpg=PA317&amp;dq=I+think+I+paid+more+attention+to+him+at+the+1988+Democratic+Convention,+when+he+was+asked+to+introduce+the+presidential+candidate+and+took+up+far+more+time+than+was+allotted+to+him.+After+he+became+involved+with+the+Democratic+Leadership+Council,+I+would+run+into+him+from+time+to+time.+But+it+was+one+of+his+aides,+Rodney+Slater,+who+actually+introduced+us+in+1991+and+asked+me+if+I+would+support+his+presidency.&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Oau57gzTMK&amp;sig=mwgoscQz5b6ogoS--dxFNDsD1RA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj14Nv3s7XNAhUXJlIKHf6ND0cQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&amp;q=I%20think%20I%20paid%20more%20attention%20to%20him%20at%20the%201988%20Democratic%20Convention%2C%20when%20he%20was%20asked%20to%20introduce%20the%20presidential%20candidate%20and%20took%20up%20far%20more%20time%20than%20was%20allotted%20to%20him.%20After%20he%20became%20involved%20with%20the%20Democratic%20Leadership%20Council%2C%20I%20would%20run%20into%20him%20from%20time%20to%20time.%20But%20it%20was%20one%20of%20his%20aides%2C%20Rodney%20Slater%2C%20who%20actually%20introduced%20us%20in%201991%20and%20asked%20me%20if%20I%20would%20support%20his%20presidency.&amp;f=false">Conversations: William Jefferson Clinton : from Hope to Harlem</a>, By Janis F. Kearney, page 317. Kearney served as the Presidential Diarist to President Bill Clinton from 1995 – 2001.</p> <p>"<i>I think I paid more attention to him at the 1988 Democratic Convention, when he was asked to introduce the presidential candidate and took up far more time than was allotted to him. After he became involved with the Democratic Leadership Council, I would run into him from time to time. But it was one of his aides, Rodney Slater, who actually introduced us in 1991 and asked me if I would support his presidency."</i></p> <p>Bill Clinton became chairman of the DLC in 1989.</p> <p>This is the problem we find so many times on denier sites: "I don't find this credible." No one *cares* if you find it credible. Is it true or not? That's all that matters. That you can't be bothered to check the veracity with a simple Google search shows you aren't interested in the truth of the matter because it *might* cause you to change your views. Where have we seen this behavior before?</p> <p>Actually, what typically happens is that even once the truth is pounded home some *other* excuse is provided so that actual held views do not have to change. I.e., the views are immune to truth. You can't change them. Why bother trying? And again, where have we seen that behavior before?</p> <p>More than 10 years ago, when recounting his relationship to the President, with the former Presidential diarist, John Lewis said he first met Bill Clinton in the late 1980's and was formally introduced in 1991. Now, in the middle of a political campaign he, for all intents and purposes, lies about their civil rights records while at the same time essentially calling Hillary's political opponent a liar.</p> <p>It was a swift boat Lewis was sailing on.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471906&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="45vBpA1AASfAajW7w1wLWGNV7dovXJ11wGJIsbUXvwk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 19 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471906">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471907" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1466397840"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#21<br /><i>zebra writes: “From which books do you conclude that Lewis first met Clinton during the 90s. I don’t find that credible.</i></p> <p>zebra didn't say that. I did (#18). You got off to a bad start.</p> <p><i>That you can’t be bothered to check the veracity with a simple Google search...</i></p> <p>I saw it on the internet. Google it. I heard it from a friend whose aunt's daughter... Sorry, but you're responsible for documenting your claims. </p> <p>Regarding Lewis and the Clintons, I again refer to:<br /><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional-black-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressiona…</a></p> <p><i>On Saturday, the Georgia representative issued a statement through the CBC, in which he said: “In the interest of unity, I want to clarify the statement I made at Thursday’s news conference.</i></p> <p>“I was responding to a reporter’s question who asked me to assess Senator Sanders’ civil rights record. I said that when I was leading and was at the center of pivotal actions within the civil rights movement, I did not meet Senator Bernie Sanders at any time.</p> <p>“The fact that I did not meet him in the movement does not mean I doubted that Senator Sanders participated in the civil rights movement, neither was I attempting to disparage his activism. Thousands sacrificed in the 1960s whose names we will never know, and I have always given honor to their contribution.”</p> <p>That doesn't sound like swiftboating to me. It sounds more like an attempt to clarify and retreat from a clumsy formulation. And, as I wrote in #14:</p> <p><i>I don’t find Lewis’s attempt to excuse his disavowal of Sanders totally convincing, but I don’t know if you can blame that on “the Clinton campaign.”</i></p> <p>To put it another way, can one blame every misspeak from a Sanders supporter on the Sanders campaign?</p> <p>Also, even though my assumption that Lewis had met the Clinton's before 1990 was wrong, Lewis does state that their paths had crossed and that he'd been aware of them:</p> <p><i>Lewis said he “did not say that I met Hillary and Bill Clinton when I was chairman of SNCC in the 1960s”.</i></p> <p>He added: “My point was that when I was doing the work of civil rights, led the Voter Education Project and organized voter registration in the south in the 1970s, I did cross paths with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the field. They were working in politics, and Bill Clinton became attorney general of Arkansas in the 1970s as well.</p> <p>You haven't attempted to explain or defend your "Goldwater girl" cherry pick. In my view, you're trying to build your case against Clinton on very flimsy evidence. </p> <p><i>This is the problem we find so many times on denier sites.</i></p> <p>Normally, when <i>denier sites</i> are referred to here, they are sites that deny the scientific consensus on climate change. What kind of denier sites are you referring to?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471907&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="baj1dAzYi7xuXl0pUMOC1wPwKcP4D1lgWwA2DhGiwnc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 20 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471907">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471908" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1466434963"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmic - defend? I made a statement of fact. The statement was used in the context of juxtaposing the truth versus Lewis' "clumsy formulation' of it. Lewis' 'clumsy' formulation also chose the years in the 60s - not me. That you interpret this as an attack on Clinton is on you - not me. </p> <p>Lewis statements *now* say me met them in the field in the 70s. Yet, a dozen years ago -- when he wasn't in a political campaign -- he met them in the late 1980s and wasn't formally introduced until 1991. Now, which are we to believe? It's possible, but why couldn't he remember those details when he was much closer to the events? How often would you forget meeting a future President of the US?</p> <p>Lewis is not just some random supporter. Does that really need to be said? Apparently. </p> <p>We all know that the attacks get the headlines and the corrections get the backpage. The damage is done once the attack is made. A million refutations won't suffice.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471908&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Kykf9mo6oDX2zS6uyR9mld96oqqeNVhdMqUdl_gllPo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 20 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471908">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471909" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1466486059"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#23</p> <p>What troubles me is your willingness to find one bit of dirt, which might not even be dirt, to justify not voting for Clinton against Trump. I haven't denied that Hillary Clinton grew up in a Republican family and supported Goldwater. That is, as you say, a fact, but it's a selective fact that misrepresents the larger truth. I didn't say it wasn't a fact. I said it was cherry picking. I think she deserves credit for breaking away from her background.</p> <p>Your use of the term 'swiftboating' also ignores the broader context. I'm not aware of cases where swiftboaters, after having made false claims, correct their mistakes and express regret for having made them. When Sanders inaccurately said, <i>“She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president,”</i> was he swiftboating Clinton? </p> <p>If you want to focus on facts, then you have to accept that Sanders lost. We can agree that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to tip things in Clinton's favor, but I think it's difficult to argue that this was a decisive factor. Clinton got many more votes. She got many more delegates. Sanders outspent Clinton by a large margin in New York, but lost. The final primaries disproved any notion that the momentum was behind him. Another fact is that the Sanders campaign attempted to overturn a democratic process by appealing to the superdelegates. If your aim is to find dirt, you can find it everywhere.</p> <p>The big fact is that the general election is between Clinton and Trump, and that they represent two very different views of your country and approaches to solving its problems. For climate change the difference is doing something, or moving catastrophically backward. The Republican Party is an enemy of all mankind. In my eyes that's far more important than anything John Lewis has said.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471909&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Fp4pugg3_V5j44QmKwMrKJ18PrbP8mL0IUh1kYApUvI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 21 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471909">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/06/11/if-bernie-sanders-was-playing-poker-he-would-not-fold%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:02:56 +0000 gregladen 33975 at https://scienceblogs.com Who Won The California, New Jersey and Other Democratic Primaries? https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/06/08/who-won-the-california-new-jersey-and-other-democratic-primaries <span>Who Won The California, New Jersey and Other Democratic Primaries?</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And, how did my <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/21/who-will-win-the-remaining-democratic-primaries/">model</a> do?</p> <p>There was a lot of talk about California, and a lot of back and forth, but in the end I stuck with my original model to predict the outcome of that race. See the table above for the results, but the bottom line is that I predicted that Clinton would get 57 percent of the votes and Sanders 43 percent. It turns out that Clinton got 57 percent and Sanders got 43 percent.</p> <p>Excuse me for a moment while I bask in the bright light of being-right-ness. </p> <p>Thank you. Now, on to the details. </p> <p>First, a quick, note on the numbers and methods. All my percents (for prediction and as reported for the outcome) are the proportions of each candidate's take of the two candidates, so "other" or "The Lizard People" or anything other than Clinton or Sanders are taken out of consideration. In some cases this will cause the numbers to look different than those reported by the press. The awarded delegates I provide here are from the Washington Post, and often do not add up to my predicted proportionate amount. This is because the process of awarding delegates is complicated and bizarre. Eventually the numbers of proportionate delegates will settle to be very close to those you would get form using the percentage of votes for each candidates. </p> <p>The outcome of yesterday's primaries was pretty much as expected, but not exactly. Polls and my model both seemed to predict that Clinton would win New Jersey by a large margin, California by a good amount, likely New Mexico, and that Sanders would take Montana and the Dakotas. </p> <p>Clinton ended up doing better in New Jersey than expected, but in the case of landslides, the final numbers are often a bit off probably because of some fundamental behavior of variance. California was as expected, as was Montana. Sanders did much better in New Mexico (a closed primary, by the way) than expected, but still did not win. </p> <p>The Dakotas are the enigma. The expectation was that Sanders would do very well in both states, better in South than North. It turns out that South Dakota totally reversed, with Clinton winning by four percent. In North Dakota, Sanders wiped Clinton out, not only winning by a large amount as expected, but trouncing clinton with what must be one of the highest margins all season. </p> <p>With respect to my model (<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/21/who-will-win-the-remaining-democratic-primaries/">detailed here</a>), I think we are looking at sample size and a few other things. I was within a fraction of a percent in the largest state, and the smallest states were the oddest. But, I also suspect different campaign efforts by the different candidates played a role. Also, when we talk about openness of the primary (or caucus) it is important to note that not all contests have corresponding Republican contests going on at the same time. That may be a big factor in the Dakotas. </p> <p>In the end, there are two big winners today. Hillary Clinton had a resounding victory in the largest state, and did very well across the board otherwise. This comes hours after the press deciding to declare her the Winner-Apparent based on math, and it verifies that math. Sanders has continuously said he would fight to the convention, attempting to overthrow the process using super delegates. He seems to have not noticed that the entire Democratic Party is mad at him, even former Sanders supporters, and the super delegates' job is actually to make an effort to maintain the spirit of the process when something goes wrong. Sanders is the thing that is going wrong at the moment -- with his effort to reverse the democratic process -- so there is zero chance that the Supers are going to come to his aid. </p> <p>The second winner is, of course, Science by Spreadsheet. I've been running spreadsheets on elections since spreadsheets were invented, and this is the best cycle I've had. I'm pretty sure my model out performed all the other models. Perhaps I will summarize all that in another post at some point.</p> <p>Can't wait to get started on the electoral map.</p> <p>I should mention that DC still has a primary to go, and it will go overwhelmingly for Clinton. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Wed, 06/08/2016 - 01:34</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/bernie-sanders" hreflang="en">Bernie Sanders</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/california-primary" hreflang="en">California Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/hillary-clinton" hreflang="en">Hillary Clinton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/montana-primary" hreflang="en">Montana Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/new-jersey-primary" hreflang="en">New Jersey Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/new-mexico-primary" hreflang="en">New Mexico Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/north-dakota-primary" hreflang="en">North Dakota Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/south-dakota-primary" hreflang="en">South Dakota Primary</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471878" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465388064"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That's impressive. Nobody else appears to have exactly nailed California; I was fiddling around on 538 last night while I waited to see where things were going.</p> <p>re Bernie supporters, I think we should all tread on eggshells, annoying as that might be. While Republican infiltrators and operators with their oppo tactics and victim blaming (Obama turncoat stuff, faugh) have found Bernieworld ready to absorb and broadcast their message, much of it is deeply sincere and reflects genuine worry and frustration with the way things are. As soon as namecalling comes in, the chance for reconciliation goes out the window.</p> <p>Hillary is complicated and compromised by history and hard work, and, for example, Kissinger is hard to excuse, and she did that to herself.</p> <p>In a battle between easy answers and real-world complexity, it's hard to persuade those rockstar crowds that Bernie can't keep his promises, while Hillary has fought the good fight forever.</p> <p>Having been part of a climate discussion group I had to leave because I couldn't stand the Hillary hate, I know that we ourselves are part of the problem here.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471878&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="er9QNnbAM0J-zLxxQvGXL-Z0-z4wdVWqWQlFohayD9U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 08 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471878">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471879" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465388362"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>btw, I stopped keeping track a while ago, but here are some others:<br /> Idaho 78-21<br /> Utah 79-20<br /> Alaska 82-18<br /> Hawaii 70-30<br /> Washington 73-27</p> <p>So you can see why Bernie people got a little carried away. Then there was the email report (still nothing criminal in there I could see, but it was open to the R tactics mentioned above) which was overshadowed by the terrible choice of Cornel West and Zogby, quickly followed by the condemnation of Barney Frank (a personal hero) and Gov. Malloy, not much leavened by McKibben choice, for the convention. At this point a few of us who had moved away from Bernieworld started to see a lot of others changing "sides".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471879&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="K2K9qDSV3wsf_XcCL6_z-pbOymIPfBUjPJDDe7wIs3w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 08 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471879">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471880" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465489858"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As someone that reached his political awareness in the 1960's mostly through anti-war protests and popular music, a Hillary Clinton presidency will be another historic landmark, but more of the same ol', same ol' in regards to US foreign policy.</p> <p>Our Orwellian state of perpetual war will continue and it's easy to envisage this getting worse - not better - under Hillary.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471880&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="T7uZSD8SX_JwocTb-niFKB4tQsbmS3lD29vrPvXkAmU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 09 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471880">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471881" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465490436"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Kevin: And when Trump starts his wars with China, with Mexico, with all the countries in the Middle East, et al, then helps the G0P with their war on the poor, their war on women, their war on science, et al, it's going to be <b>better...</b> <i>Better?</i> How?? HOW?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471881&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="NORolW55CLlQuhd2t8P4gZe7fre536zx7e9qj5jnan4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 09 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471881">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471882" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465556301"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Kevin O'Neill, me too. I did a lot of that. Meanwhile, here was Hillary:</p> <p><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/06/listen-hillary-clinton-commencement-speech-wellesley/Qpy945dVq1PPjmj7AmUbTO/story.html">http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/06/listen-hillary-clin…</a></p> <p>Lotta water under the dam, huh!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471882&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sB8CAqcm2LdlckyFUGSEMjfYBY7sUgA35GxzaiT7818"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 10 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471882">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471883" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465980342"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I should mention that DC still has a primary to go, and it will go overwhelmingly for Clinton.</p></blockquote> <p>And sure enough : </p> <p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-idUSKCN0Z0290">http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-idUSKCN0Z0290</a> </p> <p>Congrats on a very successful model and prediction. </p> <p>Now, please, please tell me your model and you are predicting a Hillary Clinton landslide in the main election event because frankly, I'm scared. </p> <p>The thought of Trump as POTUS with the nuclear codes and real power at his short fingertips has a lot of the world really worried. I'm one of them. (To quote the <i>Independence Day</i>movie.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471883&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8hZEkKeJM5V3cwAKCrV2a-eVvn-KFNoAlhKQ9FjINrw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">StevoR (not verified)</span> on 15 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471883">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471884" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465982599"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Donald Trump as POTUS, solving the global climate crisis is his "unique and expressive" way -- that only "The Donald" can:</p> <p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471884&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="IdDGJEq8l_HLpc3898vyVo9X7W4UUOyAdb012tdPiO4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 15 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471884">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471885" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465982775"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So, Stevo, stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. When Donald takes over, we'll all be "Fired!"</p> <p>But at least we'll stop pouring GHG's into the atmosphere.</p> <p>...whatever's left of it, that is.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471885&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rdb7npHVeJZRJlpCBXz-kRNmoYwWHHqwjzqPeVQimoY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 15 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471885">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471886" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1465982891"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wait... "We'll all be Fried!" that is. </p> <p><i>"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when... But I know we'll meet again some sunny day..."</i></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471886&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="K1Od4NemJpcMSXFo_9xXuPQa0cUrAMDxqoBp80xpca4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 15 Jun 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471886">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/06/08/who-won-the-california-new-jersey-and-other-democratic-primaries%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Wed, 08 Jun 2016 05:34:33 +0000 gregladen 33973 at https://scienceblogs.com The Kentucky and Oregon Democratic Primaries (Updated) https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/17/the-kentucky-and-oregon-democratic-primaries <span>The Kentucky and Oregon Democratic Primaries (Updated)</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I have not updated my model for predicting primary outcomes in the Democratic contest, but since the last few predictions were very accurate, I don't feel the need to do so. However, I will before the California primary, just in case.</p> <p>Meanwhile, my model suggests the following for today's primaries.</p> <p>Kentucky should be nearly a tie, though my model suggests that Sanders will get one more delegate than Clinton (Clinton: 27, Sanders: 28).</p> <p>The model also suggests that Sanders will win in Oregon, Clinton: 24 and Sanders: 37. </p> <p>There is very little polling in Kentucky, but the latest poll from early March has Clinton slightly ahead. I expect that to be wrong.</p> <p>Kentucky will be interesting. Clinton has been campaigning fairly strongly there, with TV ads and a lot of hand shaking. Sanders has been campaigning very little there lately, but he was campaigning heavily up until just a couple of days ago. </p> <p>In Oregon, there is also very little in the way of polls, but the one poll I've seen, from just a week ago, has Clinton winning handily. </p> <p>You will remember that my model is based mainly on ethnicity, and Oregon is a white state, thus the predicted Sanders win. But Oregon is also way different than other states. Politically it is more liberal, and they vote by mail. Every resident of the state is automatically registered. So, Oregon may be the best state in the US to represent a truly democratic and open process. Some say this arrangement favors Sanders, but in fact, it seems to favor neither candidate. So, Oregon will be interesting. </p> <p>Results will be posted here when they are available. The Oregon results will not be available until really late, maybe Wednesday some time. </p> <p><strong>RESULTS</strong></p> <p>With 99.8% of the vote counted, Hillary Clinton is being called the winner of the Kentucky Primary, but about 1,800 votes.</p> <p><a href="/files/gregladen/files/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-17-at-8.46.06-PM.png" rel="attachment wp-att-22536"><img src="/files/gregladen/files/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-17-at-8.46.06-PM.png" alt="Screen Shot 2016-05-17 at 8.46.06 PM" width="327" height="150" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-22536" /></a></p> <p>Meanwhile, in Oregon ...</p> <p>My model, which is generally pretty accurate, predicted a Sanders win, and that happened.</p> <p>But Sanders did not do as well as he should have. Here's the numbers with about 77% counted. </p> <p><a href="/files/gregladen/files/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-18-at-10.01.53-AM.png" rel="attachment wp-att-22541"><img src="/files/gregladen/files/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-18-at-10.01.53-AM.png" alt="Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 10.01.53 AM" width="311" height="164" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-22541" /></a></p> <p>This may change as more votes are counted. And, the numbers are not really all that far off. But, Sanders, in the end, will take fewer delegates from Oregon to the national convention than I was thinking he would, and he needed more than I was thinking to have any kind of chance of closing the gap. </p> <p>It will be interesting to see if, when I re-run the model with the latest info, the Oregon gap between expected and actual closes up. (Since the Oregon data will be in the model, it will close up, but by how much?) </p> <p>Oregon might have some explaining to do, and that will probably be in the framework of their new and unique way of voting. This could be quite interesting. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Tue, 05/17/2016 - 06:57</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016-0" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/kentucky-primary" hreflang="en">Kentucky Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/oregon-primary" hreflang="en">Oregon Primary</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471029" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463494310"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>'Every resident of the state is automatically registered'</p> <p> Not quite correct. Motor voter. You're registered when you go in to the dmv for a license, idea, or learners permit. If you don't go into the dmv you have to register yourself.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471029&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hD9sMTB16PYjVWftGTk90HP5cnyE3dH4pew9YV4e16k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Stan (not verified)</span> on 17 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471029">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471030" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463494438"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oops, I.D. not idea</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471030&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vmaEeClBJ029bl8eXTVkPUSEuT4QdwSfOGCEnOH55RE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Stan (not verified)</span> on 17 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471030">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1471031" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463524013"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Once again, you're correct; a near tie in Kentucky, a decent win for Sanders in Oregon.</p> <p>I'm puzzled why your model, purportedly based on demographics, shows Sanders winning in California, which is a minority majority state. Sure, independents can participate in the Democratic primary, and the black population approximates the national average, but Clinton has so far done well with Latinos, and the jungle primary is expected to advance two women, both Democrats, neither necessarily white, to the general election to replace Barbara Boxer.</p> <p>(Apropos of nothing: I've voted for Harris, of course, and will again. I've contributed to Sanchez, and received as a consequence a couple of mildly risqué Christmas cards.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471031&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hoLgOPfg3Nkwr4J5hlM6UMSBS-9eJ_3UCyiQpLgPMQg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Jim Sweeney (not verified)</span> on 17 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471031">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1471032" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463567655"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jim, the best single predictor across the US has been percentage of African American voters. The percentage of African American voters in California is quite low.</p> <p>When I've run the model with all the ethnic data in place, the analysis tells me that all the variables but AA voters introduce noise. In other words, using only AA voters, I get the highest R-squared value.</p> <p>But, California has a lot of Latino voters, and that increases the diversity and may have a big impact there. So, when I rerun the model with all the updated data, I'll put all the variables back in and see if California changes.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1471032&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DU2UMXs5QsyiCWkZ7bc7zhbvop-JpqJ3Ec-_xPlInxA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 18 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1471032">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/05/17/the-kentucky-and-oregon-democratic-primaries%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Tue, 17 May 2016 10:57:51 +0000 gregladen 33950 at https://scienceblogs.com West Virginia Democratic Primary UPDATED https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/05/10/west-virginia-democratic-primary <span>West Virginia Democratic Primary UPDATED</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><del datetime="2016-05-11T13:24:53+00:00">I'll combine my post predicting the outcome of today's Democratic Primary in West Virginia, and my post giving and discussing the results, here.<br /></del><br /> My prediction is on this table, on the left side of the line, and the actual results on the right side, for the last several primaries.</p> <p><a href="/files/gregladen/files/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-11-at-2.12.13-PM.png" rel="attachment wp-att-22502"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-11-at-2.12.13-PM-610x528.png" alt="Screen Shot 2016-05-11 at 2.12.13 PM" width="610" height="528" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-22502" /></a></p> <p>Every state is special, and some are more special than others. West Virginia has 29 pledged delegates, but not all of them were assigned today. I assume they will be assigned later. Thus, the slight difference in numbers between what I predicted and what happened. </p> <p>A key message here is this. Clinton and Sanders did exactly as well in the West Virginia primary as my model predicted, and that has been very close to exactly true for most primary races all along. </p> <p>There is something important about this <del datetime="2016-05-11T13:24:53+00:00">likely</del> win that I want to point out. </p> <p>According to many <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/29/climate-or-bust-sanders-and-clinton-should-step-up-now/">(but not all)</a> of those pushing the candidates on climate change, Sanders is THE man when it comes to climate, and Clinton will be throwing the planet under the bus the moment she is elected. The degree of contrast between Sanders and Clinton in the minds of many leading climate activists is an overstatement, and highly inaccurate. Both candidates have stated that we need to come to the point where we keep the fossil Carbon in the ground, but Sanders is the only candidate who has come out with a weakened version of this, where we only try to attain 80% non-fossil fuel use by the middle of the century. Sanders wants to make fracking illegal, which he is unlikely to be able to do, while Clinton wants to regulate it into near nothingness, which could be achieved in a year or so. On the other hand, Clinton did say to a coal miner the other day that we have to find a way to keep mining coal as long as it does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. Sure, let's do that! But first, we'll have to change physics, because we GET energy from releasing fossil Carbon, but we have to USE energy to re-attach the Carbon to something solid. </p> <p>In other words, neither candidate is where they need to be on climate change, and we will have to work to make that situation change. But, if you ask most people, they will probably tell you that Sanders is the climate change guy, and Clinton not so much. But we also know that addressing Climate Change means, essentially, shutting down the main industry in West Virginia, which is coal mining. </p> <p>So why is Sanders beating Clinton in West Virginia?</p> <p>I'll put the results of the primary below later this evening or tomorrow morning. I'll be busy during the time the returns are coming in, visiting with my friend Emo Phillips, but I'll update the post at a later time.</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Tue, 05/10/2016 - 02:27</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/climate-change" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/clinton" hreflang="en">clinton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/sanders" hreflang="en">Sanders</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/west-virginia-primary" hreflang="en">West Virginia Primary</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470930" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462863113"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I wish we in the climate change realist community would adapt the (possibly apocryphal?) motto of some petrochemical engineer I heard long ago:</p> <p>"burning petroleum for power and heat is like burning the Mona Lisa to heat the Louvre"</p> <p>Petroleum and natural gas are best suited to making plastics and other petrochemicals. These do not contribute nearly as much CO2, especially if they are recycled or landfilled rather than incinerated at their end-of-life.</p> <p>I've read that China has a coal-to-plastics/petrochemical feedstocks process to take advantage of their large coal resources. Why couldn't we in the US do the same? Keep the few remaining coal jobs, boost the economy of the coal states, reduce reliance on imported oil, divert dirty coal from CO2-producing electric power production to cleaner CO2-neutral plastic/petrochemical production.</p> <p>We should emphasize that there is more than the binary choice of:<br /> 1. Leave it in the ground, and commit economic seppuku now.<br /> 2. Burn it to maintain BAU, commit climate AND economic seppuku later.</p> <p>The 3rd choice is to leave it in the ground and save it for higher use petrochemicals. </p> <p>Clinton's plan emphasizes choice 1. We need a strong advocate for the 3rd choice.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470930&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZwBOtLH_HVkIGEfcdXAEuW_ekSCtivhqS5eyUt9r7eE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wehappyfew (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470930">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470931" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462864516"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yes, something in there is the way to go. The value of a unit mass of petrolium product in pharm and other industries is potentially huge. </p> <p>Clinton's plan is, actually, more like choice three. I don't think Sanders has thought about this problem much.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470931&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YITT1gohxLTFaRTdqBUNgpv26KuvVaJy61NlTnLIiW0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470931">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470932" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462865105"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg:</p> <p>Why is Hillary losing in West Virginia?</p> <p>Because people voting in the Dem primary are the same people who voted overwhelmingly for Mitt in 2012?</p> <p>I guess they have magically become anti-corporate since then, and they are supporting Bernie because of his socialist-sounding positions.</p> <p>Or it could be something else...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470932&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bOk40qQ69m22y0Mtr-U4EbXiUV_QNMAB8OJUgfedo9Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470932">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470933" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462870885"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I suspect Clinton's fracking regs would be negotiable, depending on who wants to frack, and who is getting fracked.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470933&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Y0tW2JA10V2jzBtVWw9msG27f6gs1wmVExpm15bpHtU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Donal (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470933">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470934" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462871582"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Zebra, do you have any evidence for that? Polls that indicate what you are saying about the likely voters? Good guess, if not, but I'm wondering if there is an analysis that suggests this.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470934&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GfV7OWWwN-r-9lQvsCHlY_Payd3PGDCeAbPoNyYPJSE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470934">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470935" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462875366"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg,</p> <p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/upshot/where-democrats-like-hillary-clinton-the-least-besides-vermont.html?ref=topics">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/upshot/where-democrats-like-hillary-c…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470935&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gEBYDEQ7HONK1BKctINtJU4J7amblHdsG_OENIpyGq4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470935">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470936" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462876556"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I made a comment elsewhere about hatred of Hillary amongst Bernie insulars, and if you look at the comments on that NYTimes Upshot article, you will see just what I mean. It didn't take long to find it, it's the top "Readers Pick" and got 384 votes as of now.</p> <p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/upshot/where-democrats-like-hillary-clinton-the-least-besides-vermont.html?ref=topics#permid=18469380">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/upshot/where-democrats-like-hillary-c…</a></p> <p>My fellow concerned Democrats are beginning to answer this, but it's been prevalent and it is fanatical, and very common amongst progressives. I actually had to take a time out from some of my best climate buddies until this is over, because they were piling on so much.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470936&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jr5kHZ6Tyw5usM7ysboHkSzbvdIzJ2HQASVAixqomLQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470936">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470937" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462877068"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I have a sad takeaway from this. Most people, left or right, want heroes, want simple answers, want somebody to fix it for them. This is the problem with the climate wars, which require that we all do something we don't want to do.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470937&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bB3_XHO_4SZgLUP1KvHCQyL_fKP44Vo5NOlBX7H9WwM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470937">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470938" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462877123"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>According to this article, West Virginia results are mainly indicative of West Virginian contrariness:</p> <p>“In one of the few West Virginia primary polls taken this year, from PPP, self-identified liberals and "somewhat" liberals are leaning toward Clinton. But Sanders has a 24-point lead among the moderates who are 35 percent of likely voters, and an 18-point lead among the 22 percent who self-identify as conservative. Are these right-leaning voters feeling the Bern? Doesn't look like it: Sanders's favorability ratio is 21/72 among "somewhat" conservative voters and 16/75 among very conservative voters. They just dislike Clinton and what she stands for even more. And West Virginia is especially prone to protest votes, as was evidenced by the 42 percent won against Barack Obama by an obscure Texas prison inmate named Keith Judd in the 2012 primary.”<br /><a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/wv-primary-preview-likely-another-bernie-win.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/wv-primary-preview-likely-…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470938&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7WMYuYrc2pK_z6oTI84sUk6pYaAz8I8f27PPVI_92_A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470938">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470939" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462877604"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Two articles by David Roberts on Clinton's energy policies and her proposals for coal country:<br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11548354/hillary-clintons-climate-and-energy-policies-explained">http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11548354/hillary-clintons-climate-and-energ…</a><br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11278138/clinton-coal-gaffe">http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11278138/clinton-coal-gaffe</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470939&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iNaRQn4VuocwF7ill4T0pkLghj3P1RsYxQ2xYnXwIWQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 10 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470939">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470940" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462962933"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>None of these West Virginia specific ideas are very motivating given that West Virginia voters acted exactly as predicted on the assumption that a) they are just like everybody else in this country and b) their preference in the Democratic primary would follow a commonly observed pattern based on ethnicity.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470940&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HcrnjMktYCMyCvn_gmN6eQrJKt3uQYRy3jv6hwm-LOc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470940">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470941" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462967630"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#11<br /> OK – I get the ethnicity part. What seems different is that liberals voted for Clinton and reactionaries for Sanders. According to zebra's link this also proved to be the case in (parts of) Oklahoma.<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/upshot/where-democrats-like-hillary-clinton-the-least-besides-vermont.html?ref=topics&amp;_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/upshot/where-democrats-like-hillary-c…</a></p> <p>"Mrs. Clinton’s profound weakness in a county named “Coal” is not because of her comments about shutting down coal mines, as one might expect. Those comments came after the Oklahoma primary.</p> <p>It’s because Coal County, like much of the traditionally Democratic parts of the South, has a huge number of registered Democrats who now vote Republican in presidential elections. In the states with closed or semi-closed contests — like Oklahoma — these registered Democrats can participate only in the Democratic primary.</p> <p>When they do, they have tended to vote against Hillary Clinton (and for Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont).</p> <p>...These conservative Democrats are a legacy of the old Democratic strength among white voters in the South, where many white conservatives nonetheless remain registered as Democrats."</p> <p>Based on this it would appear that West Virginia is an ethnic conformist that reverses the ideological pattern of most other Sanders states. Or am I missing something?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470941&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3faFfU2fbWqVnakYTFhff9AO7M_NZbuFPX621TsNduw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470941">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470942" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462968189"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg Laden, you reversed the numbers for Clinton and Sanders in Indiana:</p> <p>The actual numbers are:<br /> Bernie Sanders (won), 44 delegates, 52.5%<br /> Hillary Clinton, 39 delegates, 47.5%</p> <p>I apologize for making a general comment; I was not thinking specifically about West Virginia. In general, Bernie is outperforming the polls. It might be worth noting that one exception is New York, and one reason for that is they have direct memories of Senator Clinton which contradict the Bernian oppo-work-driven memes.</p> <p>Cosmicomics, I read the links, which were one more reminder that in a contest between the art of the possible and the impossibility of achieving the necessary on climate, Clinton chose the former. I like that, but despair that it is not enough. </p> <p>Towards the end she waffles about fracking, but I worry that hopeful idealism will make things worse in our world, enabling climate denial in a big way by abstaining from the imperfect. This is why I've switched from supporting Bernie to supporting Hillary.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470942&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9UpVaX5UhfzwEKlMSGLPr8WwozFfHG7i9QyVGDNmG_w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470942">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470943" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462968461"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#11</p> <p>Also of interest:<br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11652234/hillary-clinton-west-virginia">http://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11652234/hillary-clinton-west-virginia</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470943&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5HWF_rXCyLU51zzVop7BzOZhhb9fgQE3ZtF_Z6Tydck"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470943">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470944" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462968971"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Cosmicomics, that might be. But when the cat lands on its feet, again, it is hard to determine if the reason this time is different from all the other times.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470944&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SN5cHNrpUlK1Rqc4W5IOCb043Yhw1HDdNDG0VVrciBM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470944">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470945" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462969043"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Regarding the vox thing, I refer you to my interview with Newsweek a while back in which I noted that Obama 08 and Clinton '16 are running parallel, leaving Sanders '16 to be something, but not exactly, like Clinton 08.</p> <p>In other words, I don't disagree with that argument, but I would simply say it works across all the states among the white voters.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470945&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hOXUsS_cWbFiU5ZgxaTxzM_Q6_vJKnZZrJj7-MFY6lA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470945">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470946" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462970611"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>FWIW, and I'm not paying too close attention to this, Clinton beat Obama in 2008 in WV where she's now perceived as part of the tainted "Obama/Clinton Agenda." Maybe it's too glib to say that everything is tainted by race in the south, but...</p> <p>Elsewhere, well, you can frame Sanders v. Clinton as idealism v. pragmatism, but scratch the surface and it's about tolerance for risk/reward and who you want to trust and what you fear. </p> <p>There was an interesting program on Diane Rehm the other day about animal intelligence that drifted briefly into politics and our similarity to chimpanzees in that regard. Puts things in perspective...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470946&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZNc66GWDqcchpcMe3aC85cVsjEMAPlKaDs2au5HbXeY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Obstreperous Applesauce">Obstreperous A… (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470946">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470947" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462971010"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#13<br /> I think you'll find this interesting:<br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858464/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-political-realism">http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858464/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-po…</a></p> <p>It deals with pragmatism versus idealism in the context Obama-Clinton-Sanders.</p> <p>I'm glad that Sanders has been in the race, and Clinton has obviously changed some of her positions because of him. As far as the idealism-pragmatism contrast is concerned, I think that Sanders needs to have a detailed pragmatic fall-back position, and I'm not sure that he does. If you get a Republican House, hopeful idealism will be stopped by brutal reality. Even a Democratic Congress is no guarantee that hopeful idealism will succeed, cf. the healthcare debate within the party. Also, to your point on climate change, although Sanders states that climate change is the most important issue facing us, it doesn't seem to be integrated into his top-priority list, which seems to be reflexively dominated by millionaire-billionaire concerns.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470947&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YkNaHux9wmy31VW84IXk7dRhyZkO2WK3MfElw3bLJ4s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470947">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470948" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462971830"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#16<br /> "...my interview with Newsweek..."</p> <p>Title or link?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470948&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wZA4xquhU2OrGtreJfKvvMZ-NG0ikFUf3fM_LtGF208"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470948">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470949" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462973768"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics:</p> <p>"...reverses the ideological pattern of most other Sanders states."</p> <p>Perhaps you have some other info on this? </p> <p>I have pointed out in the past that when you examine the past results on county/precinct levels (NYT has great interactive for this) Sanders consistently wins in the most conservative areas-- ones that voted against President Obama. Rural, exurban v cities and many suburbs.</p> <p>The factors are gender and ethnicity, guns, and strategic voting. Sanders isn't getting the votes of poor, uneducated white males based on his being to the left of Clinton, certainly. These people voted for Romney, the ultimate job-destroying corporatist financial manipulator.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470949&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ycpNjXhsyWVRRbJ4W7RU6W8bV4z_AjWHgi923BxXnQc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470949">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470950" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462977792"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Romney, the ultimate job-destroying corporatist financial manipulator and white-collar thief.</p> <p>There, fixed that for you.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470950&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="A5-blY9js86YRKFgmKCo7UafjuviRQ8lMy6oSLwdGVY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470950">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470951" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462981226"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What, you don't read Newsweek faithfully? </p> <p><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-voter-support-new-obama-451858">http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-voter-support-new-obama-451858</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470951&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="T_uj3fgPxROCI3TRN6sASgYGDZemo5yFm4X3yVU6yIc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470951">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470952" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462981363"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>" (NYT has great interactive for this) " Link?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470952&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gdjZESNdw-lJkVc-2qqFZ2ayS8Ph3HsYTcY4fHpyyis"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470952">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470953" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462985104"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg #23,</p> <p>Sorry, I'm someone who was an early adopter and even did some work advancing computer stuff, but I clearly have a different concept than you young folks about "great interactive". (Interesting revelation when I thought about your question for a bit.)</p> <p>The main NYT primary maps allow you to break down the results locally. From there, you can find various breakdowns of previous elections; I can't even remember right now which sources I used. But no, there isn't "an app" that automatically compares 2012 presidential results with 2016 primary results, if that's what you are looking for, as far as I know.</p> <p>This progression of expectations is a subject a serious anthropology type should be able to spin into a paper, don't you think? ;-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470953&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_0hjuGmosa9VG7RYZjoPvC_ejmH5CISAgf7st_b40kE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470953">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470954" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463022387"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#20<br /> “Perhaps you have some other info on this?”</p> <p>No, and it could be that I'm taking things for granted that I shouldn't. But this is the only case I know of where Sanders voters have been asked whether they would vote for him in the general election, and many answered no. The explanation – registered Democrats in southern states who have a history of voting Republican and who are voting against the probable Democratic candidate – makes sense.</p> <p>The information you provide isn't solid evidence, and can point in different directions. It wouldn't surprise me if there are voters in other areas who are supporting Sanders to split the Democrats and because they believe he would be a weaker candidate, but it would be wrong to reduce Sanders's support to this, or to resort to a conspiracy of Republican masterminds, fellow-travelers, and dupes.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470954&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RhTCntUdJa_EAI94b99o6yXq31X7hwzDoUXVThaN5sk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470954">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470955" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463023051"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#22<br /> "What, you don’t read Newsweek faithfully?"</p> <p>Sackcloth and ashes again?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470955&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_dfuNT82OjsLNJwyhiU89r_uUISFWpnKhb_roqqLxA4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 11 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470955">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470956" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463025819"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics 25,</p> <p>I put racism and gender bias first on my list and strategic voting last. Perhaps you didn't realize that the order indicates how important the factors are.</p> <p>Race is a very big deal in the US. That's true for rural NY State as well as West Virginia. (Guns as well.) Perhaps you are not familiar with the prevalence of this effect-- it is true in most parts of the country.</p> <p>The "proper role" for women is also a source of strong cultural motivation, even for conservative women.</p> <p>So, we observe that a population </p> <p>1. Votes for Hillary against Obama in 2008 primaries.<br /> 2. Votes for Romney against Obama in 2012 general election.<br /> 3. Votes for Bernie against Hillary in 2016.</p> <p>What is your alternative explanation? As I said, it certainly isn't an ideological flip-flop.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470956&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tig_PD1q-xLtyrEJkD8ASoS-Wry9ovnY5ZiNia2vBbw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 12 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470956">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470957" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463054004"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#27<br /> I don't need an alternative explanation because I believe my previous one was correct.</p> <p>“I put racism and gender bias first on my list and strategic voting last."</p> <p>That's your theory, but where's your evidence? Regarding gender bias, on an earlier occasion I mentioned women like Palin, Bachmann, and Ernst. Gender bias doesn't seem to be an issue when a woman is saying things that reactionary men want to hear. And these are not stay at home moms. They are women in positions of social power.</p> <p>"So, we observe that a population</p> <p>1. Votes for Hillary against Obama in 2008 primaries.<br /> 2. Votes for Romney against Obama in 2012 general election.<br /> 3. Votes for Bernie against Hillary in 2016."</p> <p>This is an oversimplification. I believe that a large segment of the population that voted for Clinton in the 2008 primaries voted for Obama in the general election. If you have information that contradicts this, please show it. There are legitimate reasons for supporting Sanders and being skeptical of Clinton. There are also legitimate reasons for supporting Clinton and being skeptical of Sanders. Both have their strengths and their flaws. Trying to delegitimize Sanders by tying him to gender bias and racism doesn't work.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470957&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nTD5rpC_Cy6vXSylXK0H5b-j-Kjd0GwzvOrX6tD_Gnc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 12 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470957">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470958" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463061544"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Really. A particular jurisdiction's total population being on average more conservative may explain the jurisdiction's favoring both Hillary over Obama in the 2008 primary and Romney over Obama in the 2012 general election. However, the "population" in the former is not at all the same as the population in the latter; it is a selected subset.</p> <p>Zebra hints if the Democratic voters in a "conservative" jurisdiction favor Sanders over Clinton, he must therefore be more conservative than she is. Its assumption regarding those voters is what is called the fallacy of composition in elite-speak; its assumption regarding the candidates is risible to anyone who has listened to the candidates talk. What Sanders is, is more populist.</p> <p>He is certainly not more racist ("bring to heel" anyone?), and he and Hillary are both white - further, he's Jewish - so there's no reason to assume that ethnic bigotry increased his support. White voters whose primary motive is racism, which is not most white voters, should mostly support Trump. Sanders' populism means that he treats an unemployed blue-collar guy as having legitimate gripes and needs, rather than sneering at him for being trailer trash and suggesting, as some elite liberals do, that as such he is automatically a racist, so who cares if he's suffering? This is why more rural white guys, whether racist or not, support Sanders: he gives more evidence of caring about what happens to them.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470958&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MB9tFna5iOXRzygywUtjkNDIBA_mp-ktnN9IXrGmFg4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">jane (not verified)</span> on 12 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470958">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470959" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463068434"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>Sorry, I don't know what your "previous explanation" was.</p> <p>Also, you seem to say that there is some ideological pattern in previous primaries, but you haven't explained what that is.</p> <p>As the primaries have occurred, I have looked at the maps from the NYT and the pattern seems pretty consistent with areas that voted strongly for Romney being where Sanders has the best results. There are exceptions, but not many, like college towns where the population is not indigenous.</p> <p>I don't see how any of this "delegitimizes" Sanders. It only indicates that the results in the primaries don't indicate ideological support based on his policy positions. </p> <p>I've been clear all along that I see historical results and longer-term polling indicating that the majority of US voters tend to be moderate. To suggest that rural counties in Red States are hotbeds of socialist revolutionary fervor is pretty silly. There is no silent majority ready for the great revolution, so the best explanation is anti-Hillary sentiment based on factors other than policy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470959&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9lXLcxBhYdthZdyRcHE82Eja2xmDBn-SiwBrWCt1tug"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 12 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470959">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470960" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463072561"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"..,so the best explanation is anti-Hillary sentiment based on factors other than policy..."</p> <p>Probably for different reasons, different populations don't trust her. For instance, on the right there has long been a lot of frothing at at the mouth about the Clintons in general, who have been convenient symbols upon which to hang a whole chorus of dog whistling and over-the-top manufactured petty outrage.</p> <p>On the left there are plenty who are, and long have been, just plain fed up with the BAU, center right politics that she represents to them. To try to write off and diminish what Sanders represents as simply being a product of dumb ass bigotry is nonsense.</p> <p>There's a time to go slow and futz around with end-justifies-the-means triangulatin' "pragmatism", and there's a time to recognize that there's a real appetite for change out there, and deal with *that*. Why do you think the stupid punditry got it so wrong for so long? Holy cow.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470960&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="K6GzCdH_LNHqwhSayf5yEmhZ-fVXOM1a2qwNNRXvX4U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Obstreperous Applesauce">Obstreperous A… (not verified)</span> on 12 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470960">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470961" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463099541"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#30<br /> Let's begin with your way of discussing:</p> <p>“To suggest that rural counties in Red States are hotbeds of socialist revolutionary fervor is pretty silly.”</p> <p>Who has suggested that? Please provide documentation. If no one is suggesting it, why use it to represent the position of someone who disagrees with you?</p> <p>I'll continue when I've received an answer.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470961&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eQuv7EYWLioPN-NriZE5BCHP98wCqpjOsfWqrShErZ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 12 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470961">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470962" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463111975"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>I don't wish to engage in a nitpicking debate about literary terminology, but I think that statement qualifies as a form of "litotes". It is not to be taken as literally saying someone used the phrase "hotbed of of socialist revolutionary fervor".</p> <p>This should be obvious, but I will assume English is not your native tongue, and you are not familiar with the more subtle forms of rhetorical expression.</p> <p>How about: "It is illogical to think that people who consistently vote Republican (e.g. Romney) would vote for Bernie based on ideology."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470962&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xRQ642tU_FLE6N7f5rDEOskIogqVKRvObDx95tyZheQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 12 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470962">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470963" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463113136"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Obtreporous 31,</p> <p>First-- I have no idea what people mean when they say they "don't trust Hillary". </p> <p>All I've ever been able to get from questioning them is that if she says something they agree with, she is lying, but when she says something they disagree with, she is telling the truth.</p> <p>Makes no sense to me. She doesn't appear different from any politician, including Bernie, except for the fact that she is a woman. She seems a lot like Al Gore, in terms of stiff presentation, which is unfortunate, but otherwise not out of the norm.</p> <p>Second, I didn't say there were no people responding to Bernie's policies, I said those who are conservative historically did not do a 180 and become left-liberals. </p> <p>And so far, as I have said, I don't see evidence that the majority of US general election voters have changed their preference for candidates they perceive to be moderates.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470963&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zYqzb4W-gCqVv3L40J3dKW3gW_3SB6w32u6fiCt1gDI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470963">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470964" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463124819"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@33 - That wasn't a litotes by the dictionary definition - perhaps you are not familiar with rhetorical subtleties? - more like a straw man fallacy.</p> <p>Hillary's dishonesty, arrogance, cronyism, and militarism are indeed similar to those of many top male politicians in Washington. If you haven't noticed, the very male Congress has an even worse approval rating than she does. The public is fed up across the board with politicians who devote themselves to protecting the privileges and power of the American political class while the working class collapses into poverty. </p> <p>Most Americans are moderates who vote for what Obstreperous Applesauce correctly identifies as center-right politicians ... so long as the existing system is working well enough for them that they don't have good reason to fear their children will end up in a tent city. When the latter changes, the former can also change. I remind you that FDR was able to shove a social safety net down the throats of his fellow rich people because he could honestly say that the likely alternative, if Americans continued to starve, was some form of Communist revolution.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470964&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vAzVBS8p7zjeFd9BY0fo3GKzJq8ThGcmR7QOkLmhYak"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">jane (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470964">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470965" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463149038"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#33<br /> Not an answer, but an evasion, a self-exculpatory expression of arrogant ignorance – more lie than litotes. Jane (#35) is correct. We're dealing with another of your straw men:<br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/29/climate-or-bust-sanders-and-clinton-should-step-up-now/#comment-632888">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/29/climate-or-bust-sanders-an…</a></p> <p>Coupled with your repeated attempts to stack the deck, are your denigrations and overweening self-promotions:</p> <p>“...but I will assume English is not your native tongue, and you are not familiar with the more subtle forms of rhetorical expression.”<br /> (And from the thread linked to above)<br /> #19 “This may seem overly subtle parsing to you...”<br /> #13 “I’m trying to refine the argument, not refute it.”</p> <p>To put it as gently as I can: Your approach is not conducive to a productive discussion, and it doesn't portray you in a favorable light.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470965&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vvpyDzugdQtngsmoVGwtIgeacJ5uQypCGWeQmjCl_U0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470965">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470966" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463149846"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/05/13/477803909/its-gotten-a-lot-harder-to-act-like-whiteness-doesnt-shape-our-politics">http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/05/13/477803909/its-gotten-…</a></p> <p>But hey, if you want to shoot the messenger and complain about style, that's up to you.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470966&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3EqTlGjyIlozoEjUFvYSpO8AgfNFrNxXHthNwIsiS60"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470966">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470967" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463151329"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To suggest that the complexity of U.S. political races can be reduced to and adequately explained by the simple notion of race is pretty silly.</p> <p>But hey, if you want to keep dwelling on this and ignore the discussions about the other factors that are involved, that's up to you.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470967&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Mr-iIshKU9A8wGJujyzu3ZmglzVuAp9e9RJW3kelyAI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470967">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470968" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463151627"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#37<br /> No, I'm not complaining about "style." I'm complaining about manipulation and dishonesty. Is that difference too subtle for you?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470968&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hr4XTYAxJlIdDhiDVBBeyj9KG645x9drTI9LKAFwxtE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470968">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470969" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463151847"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#38<br /> I agree.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470969&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5lg0NJEfeBm54x2gIMc98OyRv5x2GhXDIZrtuGbXNyI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470969">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470970" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463154967"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/13/how-psychologists-used-these-doctored-obama-photos-to-get-white-people-to-support-conservative-politics/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_wb-psychologists-race-6pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/13/how-psychologist…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470970&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="2ELhzyuh3Lfie1PxDWJGaxBGnNoh4SyRMxA7ids23Nk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470970">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470971" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463155649"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, had he not inherited Vietnam, would have been considered one of the great liberal Presidents:</p> <p>"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470971&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Kx-s1H4gjARtNdlqs6lJEVz3Bf20a5VktH00s36fhh4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470971">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470972" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463156746"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Lyndon Baines Johnson would not fail to be considered one of the great liberal Presidents simply because he inherited or did not inherit a war. That was obviously not his fault or within his control. (What he did with it is what counts.)</p> <p>That said, what was the political "truth" in the 1960's does not necessarily ring true 50 years later. One example: Most voters accept gay marriage today. Was that also the same 50 years ago?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470972&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jPx64SfKA-5k66RfcuOo7SmX3OQa4qCiVZgq2c-ssFE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470972">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470973" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463160586"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well, I'm not one to minimize the impact of race which is still a big deal on American politics. However, since Viet Nam has been mentioned, we might as well point out that two monster drivers in politics have been free market fundamentalism and militarism. Echos of cold war and post Viet Nam politics still live on. The only reason we're not hearing the constant drone of far right wing whinging over FDR, and frothy gloating over the fall of the Berlin wall is the gigantic mess made by GWB. In this bizarro world, the Clinton's still represent a retreat from the nostalgic, hippie-punching glory of the Reagan years. IMO.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470973&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UHkyumhfnU3sqs8JO-OoSEzgXK-bh1O4D_e65AtqkmI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Obstreperous Applesauce">Obstreperous A… (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470973">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470974" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463193303"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As Brainstorms noted (#38), reducing complexity to simplicity doesn't provide adequate explanations. And how did zebra react to that? Why, by being zebra, ignoring what Brainstorms said, and doubling down on the notion that one thing explains everything. </p> <p>Below are some of the factors in addition to racism that have to be taken into consideration. The first is the development of the economy and its effects on the lives of ordinary Americans:</p> <p>“It is not enough to say that Trump is a purely racial phenomenon. Nor is it complete to argue that he is the perfectly predictable result of economic upheaval. Rather, in the last half-century, several events have pushed conservative white American middle-class men to conflate their majoritarian, economic, and cultural decline. Economic anxiety and racial resentment are not entirely separate things, but rather like buttresses in an arch, supporting each other in the creation of something larger—Donald Trump.”<br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/donald-trump-and-the-twilight-of-white-america/482655/">http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/donald-trump-and-th…</a> </p> <p>"The economic forces driving this year’s nomination contests have been at work for decades. Why did the dam break now?<br /> The share of the gross national product going to labor as opposed to the share going to capital fell from 68.8 percent in 1970 to 60.7 percent by 2013, according to Loukas Karabarbounis, an economics professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.<br /> Even more devastating, the number of manufacturing jobs dropped by 36 percent, from 19.3 million in 1979 to 12.3 million in 2015, while the population increased by 43 percent, from 225 million to 321 million.<br /> The postwar boom, when measured by the purchasing power of the average paycheck, continued into the early 1970s and then abruptly stopped ...<br /> In other words, the economic basis for voter anger has been building over forty years.”<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/campaign-stops/why-trump-now.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/campaign-stops/why-trump-now…</a> </p> <p>“ ‘McJob’ was in use at least as early as 1986, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which defines it as ‘An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.'[2] Lack of job security is common.”<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob</a> </p> <p>Economic problems have had a documented effect on health:</p> <p>“White women have been dying prematurely at higher rates since the turn of this century, passing away in their 30s, 40s and 50s in a slow-motion crisis driven by decaying health in small-town America, according to an analysis of national health and mortality statistics by The Washington Post.<br /> Among African Americans, Hispanics and even the oldest white Americans, death rates have continued to fall. But for white women in what should be the prime of their lives, death rates have spiked upward. In one of the hardest-hit groups — rural white women in their late 40s — the death rate has risen by 30 percent.<br /> The Post’s analysis, which builds on academic research published last year, shows a clear divide in the health of urban and rural Americans, with the gap widening most dramatically among whites...<br /> White men are also dying in midlife at unexpectedly high rates. But the most extreme changes in mortality have occurred among white women, who are far more likely than their grandmothers to be smokers, suffer from obesity or drink themselves to death...<br /> The Post last month found a correlation between places with high white death rates and support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.<br /><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/a-great-divide-in-american-death-statistics-show-widening-urban-rural-health-gap/2016/04/09/0d8696ae-f2b6-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html">https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/a-great-divide-in-american-…</a><br /><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf">http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf</a></p> <p>Another factor behind the rise of Trump is the Republican delegitimization of government:<br /> “But if you forced me to pick one factor explaining what's happened, I would say this is a self-inflicted wound by Republican leaders.<br /> Over many years, they've adopted strategies that have trivialized and delegitimized government. They were willing to play to a nativist element. And they tried to use, instead of stand up to, the apocalyptic visions and extremism of some cable television, talk radio, and other media outlets on the right.<br /> GOP leaders "tried to fan the flames of populist anger" — but ended up "undermining their own authority"<br /> And add to that, they've delegitimized President Obama, but they've failed to succeed with any of the promises they've made to their rank and file voters, or Tea Party adherents.<br /> ...Trump clearly had a brilliant capacity to channel that discontent among Republican voters — to figure out the issues that’ll work, like immigration, and the ways in which populist anger and partisan tribalism can be exploited. So of course, to me, he became a logical contender.”<br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11598838/donald-trump-predictions-norm-ornstein">http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11598838/donald-trump-predictions-norm-orns…</a><br /> There are local factors that apply to one or some states that don't apply to others:<br /> “Fifty-five percent of West Virginia’s Democratic voters with coal workers in their households voted for Sanders on Tuesday, while only 29 percent voted for Clinton.<br /> So why did this happen? The West Virginia politics experts who spoke to ThinkProgress said the answer likely has less to do with widespread support for Sanders’ coal policies, and more to do with a symbolic rejection of the Obama administration’s coal policies. Many West Virginia Democratic voters see Clinton as an extension of the Obama administration — and despite the fact that Clinton’s policies are probably more pro-coal than Sanders’, voters are protesting the Obama administration’s energy agenda by voting for anybody but Clinton.<br /> ...Of course, there are many West Virginia Democrats who voted for Sanders based on the meat of his policy proposals. But there is evidence to support the theory that many West Virginians cast protest votes, and that those votes benefited Sanders in the end.”<br /><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/12/3777329/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-coal-country-west-virginia/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/12/3777329/bernie-sanders-hill…</a> </p> <p>Unlike most states, West Virginia has a significant number of Republicans who can't vote in the Republican primary because they're registered as Democrats:</p> <p>“Sanders also benefited from support among Democratic primary voters who said they would favor Trump over Clinton or Sanders in a general election. Roughly 1 in 3 primary voters said they would back Trump in the general election over Clinton, and Sanders won two-thirds of their votes.”<br /><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/10/early-w-va-numbers-show-4-in-10-sanders-backers-prefer-trump-over-clinton-and-trump-over-sanders/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/10/early-w-va-nu…</a> </p> <p>Clearly, the present situation in the U.S. is the result of a multiplicity of factors, and focusing on only one of those while ignoring all the others is an example of motivated reasoning and very poor analytical skills.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470974&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7_tIBaDRYq03ZemCIvw2q1iEf_cihA4IFAcEY9lAiUE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 13 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470974">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470975" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463199818"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Brainstorms,</p> <p>Getting back to the original subject, which everyone is trying to change (validating the reference I gave at 37)...</p> <p>Yes, the majority appears to accept gay marriage, but it is still a potent motivator for a subset of the population, just like race and gender. That's why the Repubs keep using it.</p> <p>So, as to the original question about the voting pattern that has been described (which I pointed out is consistent beyond West Virginia at the county level):</p> <p>Race and gender are the logical explanations for the pattern, secondarily guns and strategic voting. Traditionally conservative areas do not agree with the Euro-socialist rhetoric of the Sanders campaign; there is no "revolution".</p> <p>Although I can't provide the same kind of supporting evidence I did above, my speculation is that as "soft" or unconscious racism, gender-role expectations, homophobia, and so on, have become less prevalent and acceptable in the general population, hard-core bigotry has become, well, more hard-core. </p> <p>Voting for Sanders, <b>in those areas and among that particular demographic</b>, is part of lashing out against that change. Again, there is no (Euro-socialist) "revolution".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470975&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hVLPF_Qij9KGcXGV8ePZzmNTGKsHLSVM_kD1-8oduwQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 14 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470975">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470976" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463208038"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>Perhaps you just want to be hostile and argumentative, but if not, you seem to be confusing focus with ignoring complexity. You also seem not to understand the implications of your own reference.</p> <p>The OP was about Sanders voters not Trump voters.</p> <p>Greg: "So why is Sanders beating Clinton in West Virginia."</p> <p>I answered and extended the analysis to Sanders votes in other historically Republican county level results. </p> <p>Your own reference agrees with me:</p> <blockquote><p>Many West Virginia Democratic voters see Clinton as an extension of the Obama administration — and despite the fact that Clinton’s policies are probably more pro-coal than Sanders’, voters are protesting the Obama administration’s energy agenda by voting for anybody but Clinton.</p></blockquote> <p>Well, the question is, why are they protesting? </p> <p>If white women are dying at an alarming rate, you would think that Obamacare would be highly popular among the poor rural white demographic. And, while I can't think of which state the study was done in, it turns out that it <i>is</i> popular <b>as long as it is called something else</b>. Gosh, I wonder why that is. </p> <p>Actually, cosmicomics, it is you who are not dealing with the "complexity" of the psychology behind this cultural phenomenon. Perhaps you think you have a better understanding than LBJ, who grew up in that milieu? Or the serious scholars who have studied Authoritarian Personality? Being afraid of minorities and women gaining status at white male expense goes back to the founding of the USA; it didn't happen suddenly 50 years ago.</p> <p>Anyway, you have offered nothing to contradict my conclusion, which is that the votes for Sanders are not indicative of agreement with the policies and rhetoric of his campaign in those geographical areas I have characterized.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470976&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dnbttuK86taIRIY1TYNV5BrnPow6JTxiVnEgztvXAN8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 14 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470976">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470977" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463214887"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jane (35), that's a broad brush you're using. It sounds just like Republican opposition work, and my complaint is that on the Bernie hangouts, that kind of oversimplification is rife. My suggestion is that people look at the record. That said, I did vote for Bernie, and have been a fan of his for a long time. But his stubborn one-note claims and recent turn to more insistent insults and claims lacking context have turned me away from him.</p> <p>I recently found this, which addresses the problem head on with some specifics:</p> <blockquote><p>Pick apart their voting records for the years they shared legislative seats. 93% identical votes. Differing on some key issues: She votes Yes to end the debate and vote the Immigration Reform Bill, He votes No. Several times. Many times. She votes No to allowing funding levels for troops in hot spots be raised/lowered at legislative will, He votes Yes. She votes Yes for a fixed deadline to end engagement in armed conflict, He votes No. BUT on any of the issues which could have put her in the pocket of wall street, made her a shill for financial or foreign interests, their voting records are identical. Bernie, What have you got for us? A revolution? Some of us were 18 fifty years ago. We grew up.</p> <p>One boomer leveraged his considerable fame and intellect to start a public charity. One of the goals is infrastructure and economic change in places like Africa. So, if Walter Rhett is mad at Hillary for not solving Africa's considerable challenges during her term at State, consider that the Clinton Foundation enabled farmers in Malawi to plant 2,600,000 trees with the ability to capture 200,000 of CO2, a commodity which they can sell as carbon credits. Other farmers gained access to climate sensitive agronomy techniques, maize &amp; soy production partnerships. More Africans (9.9 million) received access to aids drugs at prices negotiated by the foundation, in addition to clinics, training of local health workers and mothers.</p></blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/opinion/bring-hillary-and-bernie-together.html#permid=18503575">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/opinion/bring-hillary-and-bernie-toge…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470977&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zIAV-YhfqAw_-dtBGKptBQWhHUwOOLIzjkYjOQHNlH4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Anderson (not verified)</span> on 14 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470977">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470978" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463234417"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#47</p> <p>“The OP was about Sanders voters not Trump voters.”</p> <p>Correct, but the factors that have enabled Trump's candidacy are to a certain extent the same as those that have enabled Sanders's. They're also factors that help explain why Obama became less popular after 2008, and why Clinton's association with Obama hurts her among certain voters. </p> <p>“Greg: “So why is Sanders beating Clinton in West Virginia.”<br /> I answered and extended the analysis to Sanders votes in other historically Republican county level results.”</p> <p>No, you cherry picked to get the answer you wanted and ignored all information that challenges your conclusion. These are the state's results in presidential elections since 2000.</p> <p>2000 Bush Gore<br /> Popular vote<br /> 336,475<br /> 295,497<br /> Percentage<br /> 51.9%<br /> 45.6%</p> <p>2004 Bush Kerry<br /> Popular vote<br /> 423,778<br /> 326,541<br /> Percentage<br /> 56.1%<br /> 43.2%</p> <p>2008 McCain Obama<br /> Popular vote<br /> 397,466<br /> 303,857<br /> Percentage<br /> 55.60%<br /> 42.51%</p> <p>2012 Romney Obama<br /> Popular vote<br /> 417,655<br /> 238,269<br /> Percentage<br /> 62.30%<br /> 35.54%</p> <p>The Republicans won each year, and Obama's 2008 result is not appreciably worse than Kerry's in 2004. It's not very far behind Gore's result in 2000. There's a big change in 2012. Why? Is it because West Virginian voters suddenly became more racist than they were in 2008, or are there other factors, e.g. the drawn out economic crisis and the loss of coal mining jobs that better can explain this. Your only explanation is racism.</p> <p>My reference does not agree with you:</p> <p>“The West Virginia politics experts who spoke to ThinkProgress said the answer likely has less to do with widespread support for Sanders’ coal policies, and more to do with a symbolic rejection of the Obama administration’s coal policies. Many West Virginia Democratic voters see Clinton as an extension of the Obama administration — and despite the fact that Clinton’s policies are probably more pro-coal than Sanders’, <i>voters are protesting the Obama administration’s energy agenda by voting for anybody but Clinton.</i><br /> …Of course, there are many West Virginia Democrats who voted for Sanders based on the meat of his policy proposals. But there is evidence to support the theory that many West Virginians cast protest votes, and that those votes benefited Sanders in the end.”</p> <p>One has to be willfully blind not to see the passage about “the Obama administration’s energy agenda,” and extremely obtuse not to understand that coal mining communities feel threatened by it. One also has to be extremely obtuse not to realize how disastrous a blunder it was for Clinton to declare, “we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” </p> <p>Re. Obamacare, the state you're thinking of is Kentucky, another coal mining state.</p> <p>“And, while I can’t think of which state the study was done in, it turns out that it <i>is</i> popular <b>as long as it is called something else</b>. Gosh, I wonder why that is.” </p> <p>You don't have to wonder any more.</p> <p>“Perhaps you think you have a better understanding than LBJ, who grew up in that milieu?”</p> <p>What did LBJ have to say about the social consequences of the Great Recession and the collapse of coal mining? </p> <p>Why haven't you acknowledged that reactionary men have no problem voting for reactionary women. </p> <p>“Anyway, you have offered nothing to contradict my conclusion, which is that the votes for Sanders are not indicative of agreement with the policies and rhetoric of his campaign in those geographical areas I have characterized.”</p> <p>Alas, you chose to leave out the following: “Of course, there are many West Virginia Democrats who voted for Sanders based on the meat of his policy proposals.” To a greater extent this would be the case in red states outside the South, where the remaining Democrats really are Democrats.</p> <p>Why do you consistently choose to ignore evidence that contradicts your one-sided argument? To be clear, you are not focusing on one cause among many. You are arguing that only one cause exists.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470978&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PFhIcBs7DbyO5xKXnacMqOEH82Ifla2nO-5-3ovQ2lo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 14 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470978">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470979" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463246212"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>SA @ 48</p> <p>The quote doesn't seem to be from the link provided.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470979&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="inhmTYb6b6bmvwJkoqulib4jSJh4BQwriXPqA1sDJEU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Obstreperous Applesauce">Obstreperous A… (not verified)</span> on 14 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470979">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470980" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463289358"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>You aren't making sense. And for someone who likes to use the term "strawman", you are addressing everything but my point.</p> <p>It is obvious that there is "natural variation" in the voting, just like climate change-- local factors have some effect. But that doesn't change certain fundamentals, which are well studied and established.</p> <p>There are no coal mines in New York State, but we observe exactly the same pattern I have described, when we look at the county level, and this is true <b>all over the country</b>. There are also independent studies about racial attitudes, again at that higher resolution, and the results are consistent with this effect.</p> <p>So what are you arguing about? I have agreed there are policy-driven Sanders voters. How does that refute what I am saying about Sanders voters who <b>aren't</b> policy driven?</p> <p>And specifically about West Virginia-- Barack Obama got 23% of the primary vote there in 2008. Are you saying that this was because of the Obama Administration coal policy, and the pace of economic recovery? Was there a time machine involved?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470980&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DwUflggPtYzm4jPBTcMnQ_ZVMXWrcABevtG2182FYjM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 15 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470980">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470981" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463319774"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#51<br /> You've used the word litotes without understanding what it meant. You're using the term straw man without understanding what it means. You have such a high opinion of yourself that you're convinced you know things you don't know. Referring to a dictionary is evidently beneath you. You've described yourself as a “political junkie.” No one has been as obstinately, pertinaciously wrong about the Republican primaries as you. Despite the rising mountain of evidence that John Kasich could not be the nominee, you continued to maintain that he would. This time you've hooked on to a theory for which you have no evidence, and you ignore or distort whatever evidence runs counter to your tale.</p> <p>“Race and gender are the logical explanations for the pattern.” #46</p> <p>No they aren't. And, as I mentioned before, the only logical explanation for your “pattern” is an attempt to discredit Sanders by linking him to gender bias and racism. </p> <p>There are obvious parallels between Sanders and Trump:</p> <p>“ 'By self-funding my campaign, I am not controlled by my donors, special interests or lobbyists. I am only working for the people of the U.S.!' ” Donald Trump<br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-americans-trump-betrayed-by-courting-big-money-donors/482025/">http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-americans-trump…</a> </p> <p>“ 'The candidate is considered a political outsider by all the pundits. He’s tapping into the anger of the voters, delivers a populist message. He believes everyone in the country should have healthcare, he advocates for hedge fund managers to pay higher taxes, he’s drawing thousands of people at his rallies, and bringing in a lot of new voters to the political process. And he’s not beholden to any super PAC. Who am I describing?' ” Brzezinski asked.<br /> Without missing a beat, Trump added that he is not beholden to any special interests or donors, before confidently asserting, “You’re describing Donald Trump.”<br /> There was only one problem: she wasn’t. Instead, Brzezinski told the billionaire businessman that she was describing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed Democratic socialist.”<br /> “He went on to say that he and Sanders agree that the U.S. is being 'ripped off big league on trade.' ”<br /><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/18/msnbc-anchor-asks-donald-trump-slick-trick-question-see-how-he-answers/">http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/18/msnbc-anchor-asks-donald-tru…</a> </p> <p>On a superficial level Trump and Sanders have a similar appeal. Both their candidacies are the result of a long economic process that has hurt many Americans. They are both insurgent candidates from outside the parties' establishments, and some voters believe they're almost interchangeable. They're not, and the parties they're attempting to represent are totally different. Racism has been a part of the Republican Party's DNA since it launched its Southern strategy. The racists have left the Democratic Party. The social solutions promoted by the Republicans have likewise meant that gender bias coalesces there, and not in the Democratic Party. </p> <p>One can oppose Clinton without being a racist or a proponent of gender bias, but there are valid reasons for not trusting her, and it is totally unnecessary to interpret protest votes against her as manifestations of racism and gender bias.<br /><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/">http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-20…</a><br /><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/">http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-w…</a><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg</a> </p> <p>Using your logic, Sanders's losses can be interpreted in the following way: opposing Sanders because his campaign now seeks to overthrow a democratic electoral result, and because his political revolution is pie in the sky politics and he has nothing else to offer, is in reality nothing more than antisemitism. </p> <p>I have no desire to continue this discussion.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470981&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QFSBs7d-2ELxbMlVaob_IJ0HJ7Bc-tncAkZ2V2oYudI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 15 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470981">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470982" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463376811"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>Clearly, you are overly sensitive to someone pointing out that you are being illogical. You also seem to have some kind of Denial issue about the significance of race and gender in the US, even though there is ample science on the subject.</p> <p>Anyway, for anyone interested in a nice discussion of the historical context:</p> <p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/campaign-stops/make-america-great-again-for-the-people-it-was-great-for-already.html?action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;clickSource=story-heading&amp;module=opinion-c-col-left-region&amp;region=opinion-c-col-left-region&amp;WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/campaign-stops/make-america-g…</a></p> <p>Certainly a valuable read for those who always bring up FDR-- more evidence that he was far more like Hillary than like Bernie.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470982&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yxcOIAHzWT4Y3mqovBgvJZIzCWCbYNknPlQFvSjoTpU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 16 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470982">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/05/10/west-virginia-democratic-primary%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Tue, 10 May 2016 06:27:57 +0000 gregladen 33940 at https://scienceblogs.com Climate Or Bust: Sanders and Clinton Should Step Up Now https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/29/climate-or-bust-sanders-and-clinton-should-step-up-now <span>Climate Or Bust: Sanders and Clinton Should Step Up Now</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><em> <p>This is a guest posts by Claire Cohen Cortright. </p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/claire.cortright">Claire Cohen Cortright</a> is a mother, climate activist, and biology teacher living in upstate New York. She</p> <p>is an active member of <a href="http://citizensclimatelobby.org/">Citizens Climate Lobby</a> and moderator at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/GWFofD/">Global Warming Fact of the Day</a>.</p> <p></p></em></p> <p>______________________________________________</p> <p>It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.</p> <p>As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon … for Vice President and for the Party’s policy platforms.</p> <p>Now, we must be sure climate change and carbon cutting policy are part of those negotiations.</p> <p>Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What are the key policies will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?</p> <p>His campaign’s latest email provides a likely answer to this question: </p> <p>“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).</p> <p>Notice what is missing?</p> <p>The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.</p> <p>Climate change.</p> <p>Climate activists have been insisting that climate change be made the top level priority for all campaigns and all elected officials. It is possible that this activism has failed to varying degrees with respect to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. That means it comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.</p> <p>Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END the use of gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.</p> <p>Bernie Sanders’ stated policy is allow nuclear plant licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. However, the reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance is economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won’t be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017’s maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it’s done. You can’t just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.</p> <p>Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn’t support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.</p> <p>Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address. </p> <p>It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.</p> <p>It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.</p> <p>______________________________________________</p> <p>*Here is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:</p> <p>“Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.” <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/">source</a></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Fri, 04/29/2016 - 05:04</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/climate-change-0" hreflang="en">Climate Change</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/global-warming-1" hreflang="en">Global Warming</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/uncategorized" hreflang="en">Uncategorized</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/clinton" hreflang="en">clinton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/global-warming" hreflang="en">global warming</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/guest-post" hreflang="en">guest post</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/sanders" hreflang="en">Sanders</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470678" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461937388"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Looks like y'all like BAU.</p> <p>I haven't been paying much attention to Clinton, but I've certainly seen Sanders abruptly interrupt interviewers - and his own train of thought - to assert that climate change is the most pressing issue.</p> <p>There's also an interview somewhere up online - excuse me if I can't be arsed to take you seriously enough to look it up for you - in which Jane Sanders lets slip that they were looking at appointing Bill McKibben to head the EPA. His lack of oil industry experience will, I fear, make him unacceptable to HIllary.</p> <p>Et tu, Greg?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470678&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4DKh3CKkkDc_2farAyDt9doy3PplmBSqPRgG4-P92XM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">idunno (not verified)</span> on 29 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470678">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470679" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461938426"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Here is the question now.</p> <p>If the party nominates Hillary Clinton, which seems increasingly likely, how do we ensure that climate is the first priority?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470679&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fX0J6fDYXUD9D0SsLoM1NmWqreFVqS5WTEYg5PzZKKA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Claire Cohen Cortright">Claire Cohen C… (not verified)</span> on 29 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470679">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470680" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461948667"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Time to really push science and climate change as one of the key issues. Hillary--please put the climate deniers on the defensive.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470680&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nPQeq0CUyX6ugzI4B6fXA3hkMcx1dvgMjBn3hPv8JRo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bill DeMott (not verified)</span> on 29 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470680">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470681" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461998861"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@1. idunno : I looked for your interview with a quick google check and couldn't find it. </p> <p>I did see that Bill McKibbin has endorsed and supports Sanders on a few sites - but this point is now practically moot since it is now clear that Sanders will not be the Democratic party's nominee and Hillary Clinton will be. </p> <p>You "can't be arsed" to provide citations and it seems you also can't be arsed looking at what Hillary Clinton has actually said on the issue either much. For instance, from her website here : </p> <p><a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/">https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/</a> </p> <blockquote><p><b>Making America the world’s clean energy superpower and meeting the climate challenge. </b></p> <p>Hillary will:</p> <p>Create good-paying jobs by making the United States the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.</p> <p>Set national goals to have 500 million solar panels installed; generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America; cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third; and reduce American oil consumption by a third.<br /> Lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade—and keep going.</p> <p><i>“I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.”</i><br /> HILLARY, NOVEMBER 29, 2015</p></blockquote> <p>(All original bold, italics, caps - cut.'n'pasted.) </p> <p>If you really think she's not serious about this, please explain why with sources and show your work and supporting arguments please. </p> <p>Also BAU = ???</p> <p>I certainly think Climate change should be a top priority and get more attention here. </p> <p>Good article Claire Cohen Cortright - thanks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470681&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Kgj9pArPXQJuQh6ns481h0m4V40N0PVG62_-DIxrNkc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">StevoR (not verified)</span> on 30 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470681">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470682" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462004085"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As with the primary campaign, there seems to be this conflation of rhetoric with action.</p> <p>The stage we are at right now is winning the election, which impacts SCOTUS above all, and winning at least the Senate, and making inroads in the House, both being critical as well.</p> <p>There are two kinds of people: Those who trust Hillary to take CC seriously when in office, given her statements to now, and those who say she is dishonest and it doesn't matter what she promises because she is "beholden" to Wall Street. (The latter being self-contradictory, but anyway...)</p> <p>I'm going to trust that her team has done its homework on the best approach to using the CC issue to best effect. Saying "she must make CC a priority <i><b>in the campaign</b></i>" makes no sense to me. You can't play if you don't win, and extreme positions don't win.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470682&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Dtt8sb-Htpw7EeCy80qLXn9jFW2MfPeYFifJxo85aSI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 30 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470682">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470683" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462011743"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>One of the reasons climate change hasn't been a top priority item is that neither the media nor leading politicians have made it one. Clinton castigated debate moderators for not asking questions about women's issues. Both she and Sanders should have been more forceful in demanding attention to the issue of climate change. In the coming debates with the Republican nominee Clinton should insist on this, and she should not allow the moderators to let Trump off the hook when he displays his ignorance.</p> <p>I don't imagine that extreme weather events will take a break during the campaign. Climate change has made some of these more probable. In these cases Clinton should have a rapid response team that can send her or a prominent surrogate to the affected area. Showing is better than telling, and this can appeal to voters' identification with the victims. It would also help against Clinton's negatives by showing her as an empathetic person responsive to the needs of vulnerable Americans. </p> <p>Katrina demonstrated Bush's shallowness and incompetence. Extreme weather events are crises Clinton shouldn't let go to waste<br /><a href="https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/23/kevin-trenberth-is-climate-change">https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/23/kevin-trenberth-is-climate-change</a>-<br /> making-weather-better/#more-33648</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470683&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fXPb3qOpXCUcArLNkx2Kt_dWXpAwTrd-lANWtdratWk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 30 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470683">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470684" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462066189"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In recent days I've been (re)reading about how Americans have been affected by economic developments. Yesterday an essay in The Atlantic by Neal Gabler<br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/">http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476…</a><br /> gave me a better understanding of how far-reaching the crisis is, and how obsessed many Americans must be with simply getting by. It also made me aware that the political discussion about climate change can't be isolated from the political discussion about the economy. No matter how solid the science, if the Republicans can turn action on climate change into an expense (with a questionable return that benefits a corrupt inner circle), then convincing Americans about the urgency of action will be doomed to failure. A strong case has to be made that not acting will be far more costly than acting, and that not acting will result in worsening weather extremes whose costs will be borne by ordinary Americans. A strong case has to be made that ties healthcare costs to pollution from fossil fuels. A strong case has to be made that continued reliance on fossil fuels costs more than transitioning to clean energy. We have to begin arguing about climate change in terms of negative compound interest. The more we can tie the fight against climate change to the economic struggles of average Americans, the more successful we'll be.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470684&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LF6SFRnQAQhir61x5YcXF980R6LQ9Ce4rSSIoBJG9Jg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 30 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470684">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470685" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462099177"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>Worth reading through:<br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/30/11535004/millennials-climate-votes">http://www.vox.com/2016/4/30/11535004/millennials-climate-votes</a></p> <p>The Atlantic article did no impress me, because the guy said something like "I know I chose to spend money on stuff but it's still [ ]'s fault I'm in this situation."</p> <p>Clearly this is not someone with "no resources"-- if you can borrow money from your kids, the investment in their education is paying off, at least. People in the USA are always crying poor, even when they have no reason to complain. Of course, some really are poor.</p> <p>I also saw an article that said Tesla is up to 400,000 deposits on the new car and projecting 500,000 this year. I think it is stuff like this that will make the changes we need happen, rather than dry "education" about CC. People tend to want to do something positive (and cool) rather than not doing things. Like buying LED bulbs, but not turning off lights when leaving the room.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470685&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-YMkv_reAMuZd9TmLy0VR0kTQWQ4-fo2PjUHXWG8Uf0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 01 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470685">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470686" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462099636"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sorry, that last sentence didn't make sense:</p> <p>-People like to do positive things like buying LED bulbs</p> <p>rather than negative things like</p> <p>-turning off the lights when leaving the room</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470686&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1KMK-ajZRnfh_IujyY4rdMgcu72B5B_b4hR1m-BBXME"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 01 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470686">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470687" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462109806"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#8<br /> One can easily argue that Gabler himself has been irresponsible, has made some rather poor choices, and is not representative. What I found eye-opening was the information he provided that went beyond his own personal experience.</p> <p>"The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all."</p> <p>"Median net worth has declined steeply in the past generation—down 85.3 percent from 1983 to 2013 for the bottom income quintile, down 63.5 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and down 25.8 percent for the third, or middle, quintile. According to research funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, the inflation-adjusted net worth of the typical household, one at the median point of wealth distribution, was $87,992 in 2003. By 2013, it had declined to $54,500, a 38 percent drop. And though the bursting of the housing bubble in 2008 certainly contributed to the drop, the decline for the lower quintiles began long before the recession—as early as the mid-1980s, Wolff says.</p> <p>Wolff also examined the number of months that a family headed by someone of 'prime working age,' between 24 and 55 years old, could continue to self-fund its current consumption, presuming the liquidation of all financial assets except home equity, if the family were to lose its income—a different way of looking at the emergency question. He found that in 2013, prime-working-age families in the bottom two income quintiles had no net worth at all and thus nothing to spend. A family in the middle quintile, with an average income of roughly $50,000, could continue its spending for ... six days. Even in the second-highest quintile, a family could maintain its normal consumption for only 5.3 months. Granted, those numbers do not include home equity. But, as Wolff says, 'it’s much harder now to get a second mortgage or a home-equity loan or to refinance.' So remove that home equity, which in any case plummeted during the Great Recession, and a lot of people are basically wiped out. 'Families have been using their savings to finance their consumption,' Wolff notes. In his assessment, the typical American family is in 'desperate straits.' ”</p> <p>There's more, so simply seeing the essay as the tale of one man's experience misses the point. (Especially as a number of other articles have described the decline of the American middle class and the desperation among voters partial to Trump.)</p> <p>The Vox article you linked to contains a passage that supports my argument:</p> <p>"There are reasons to think millennials prioritize climate and clean energy somewhat higher than other demographics, but even for them, the economy, health care, and affordable education come first. Very few voters, including millennials, list these issues in their top tier of concerns.</p> <p>So NextGen is setting out to do two things. One, they want to raise the salience of climate/energy with millennial voters, to increase that intensity. This can be done by tying it to more salient issues. For instance, one commonality across all polling of millennials is that they are obsessed with authenticity and disgusted by what they see as the corruption of politics. Insofar as climate/energy can be tied to the nefarious corrupting influence of fossil fuel companies (millennials hate Big Oil), or to economic growth and health, it can play a larger role in their voting choices."</p> <p>Combining climate change with economic concerns is more compelling than climate change in isolation.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470687&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ffIDqBMajqZP-aQ-IL7zC7FdzAcFFm6YIEviUtO8cEc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 01 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470687">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470688" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462164135"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>I am familiar with the situation, and I would say that the numbers as presented exaggerate things. I could say I lost half the value of my house (and my "net worth") in the crash, but the value was absurdly inflated in the first place. Nothing really changed. I'm still living in my house. It is wrong to conflate my experience with that of really poor people whose lifestyle was affected at a fundamental level. It is a part of human nature, and particularly in the US, to downplay one's good fortune.</p> <p>But my more important point was that to appeal to millenials and others, you can't tell them "CC will hurt the economy, we should have a carbon tax". </p> <p>They will not connect with that. </p> <p>They will connect with "lets create jobs by putting solar panels on houses and improving the grid and destroying the monopoly of utilities and FF companies", and so on. </p> <p>This is my experience of how people think in the US-- if you think you can win them over talking about "sacrifices for some future common good", I wish you luck. You will need it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470688&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cDGQo8KRsDLburze63CqjCqwcv0MK45gNv4DKy6HIO8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 02 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470688">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470689" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462179350"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#11<br /> “I could say I lost half the value of my house (and my “net worth”) in the crash, but the value was absurdly inflated in the first place. Nothing really changed.”</p> <p>But the economic despair and discontent isn't just a consequence of the financial crisis. </p> <p>“The share of the gross national product going to labor as opposed to the share going to capital fell from 68.8 percent in 1970 to 60.7 percent by 2013, according to Loukas Karabarbounis, an economics professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.<br /> Even more devastating, the number of manufacturing jobs dropped by 36 percent, from 19.3 million in 1979 to 12.3 million in 2015, while the population increased by 43 percent, from 225 million to 321 million.<br /> The postwar boom, when measured by the purchasing power of the average paycheck, continued into the early 1970s and then abruptly stopped (see the accompanying chart).”<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/campaign-stops/why-trump-now.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/campaign-stops/why-trump-now…</a> </p> <p>“ 'McJob' was in use at least as early as 1986, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which defines it as 'An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.'[2] Lack of job security is common.”<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob</a> </p> <p>The figures for the decline in net worth in Gabler's essay use 1983 as the base line. And the Vox article that you yourself cite (without further specification) explicitly states that millennials are more concerned with economy related issues such as “the economy, health care, and affordable education.” </p> <p>You make things too easy for yourself by writing:<br /> “But my more important point was that to appeal to millenials and others, you can’t tell them 'CC will hurt the economy, we should have a carbon tax'.”</p> <p>#6 was about the damage that CC is already doing to the economy, human lives, and more, and I didn't make the argument you're implying I made. My argument was essentially the same as Steyer's, i.e. that it's easier to mobilize voters to consider CC when you can tie it to other, higher priority concerns. We can agree that the other concerns shouldn't be higher, but we have to face the world as it is. I agree with what you've said about solar panels, etc. What I wrote in #7 is not at odds with that:<br /> “A strong case has to be made that continued reliance on fossil fuels costs more than transitioning to clean energy.”</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470689&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Mnaj6jw6dwrjyAbeB_AH7MvoEhNeHHfg3zdhQGI0yoc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 02 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470689">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470690" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462189131"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>First, there's no need to be so defensive all the time-- I'm trying to refine the argument, not refute it.</p> <p>Second, on motivating the public: It's about "framing" and language:</p> <p>"...reliance on fossil fuels costs more..."</p> <p>is negative language.</p> <p>I may be misunderstanding "We can agree that other concerns shouldn't be higher...". But I think other concerns <i>should</i> be higher <i>in the framing</i>. </p> <p>Teslas get great acceleration, have good quality, and have all kinds of tech characteristics that would appeal to the iPhone generation. That's how you advertise them.</p> <p>Same with solar panels; jobs and selling electricity and having backup in a storm and all that comes first. Not <b>fear</b> of some bad climate effects in the future.</p> <p>Because those are <i>positive</i> incentives, OK? The social responsibility aspect is a bonus-- important selling point, but people just don't connect with the future as much as we would like them to.</p> <p>Now, I don't want to go on forever, but let me say that these comparisons with the supposed "golden age" are not convincing. Remember that the "good manufacturing jobs" created pollution and shoddy products, and minorities and women were excluded from the economic benefits. Why do you think all those union guys supported Reagan?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470690&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="thDlRf3gCSu6kjHAlheArplIwMJREeXVRPmS4v2A8O4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 02 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470690">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470691" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462194090"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#13</p> <p>A few points.<br /> Fear can be a very potent motivator.<br /> Negative things should be described as they are.<br /> When we use the term clean energy we are either explicitly or implicitly contrasting it with dirty energy. The positive is a contrast to a negative.<br /> “...that other concerns shouldn't be higher.” That climate change is more important.<br /> There's no talk of a “supposed 'golden age,' ” only the reality that socio-economic changes (e.g. concentration of wealth, weakening of unions, globalization, automation) have marginalized a large number of people and caused them to despair and sometimes seek desperate solutions.<br /><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/a-great-divide-in-american-death-statistics-show-widening-urban-rural-health-gap/2016/04/09/0d8696ae-f2b6-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html">https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/a-great-divide-in-american-…</a><br /><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf">http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470691&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LeHNtbam2l88plQd6qtLs1HCdVCe5icq6OQk-WOUSUk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 02 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470691">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470692" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462252426"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>" ...marginalized a large number of people and caused them to despair and sometimes seek desperate solutions."</p> <p>I don't know your personal history, but I think you are ignoring US history. I was there when US cities were burning because African-Americans were "living with despair and seeking desperate solutions". And I mean, I worked in one of those neighborhoods; I didn't watch it on tv. A scary commute for a young white guy.</p> <p>If people feel despair because they can no longer feel superior to other people, my sympathy is greatly diminished. If they choose to be anti-union, which most of these people do, that is their problem, not mine. </p> <p>You seem to be missing the point about wealth concentration. The socio-economic change that had the most profound effect was uplift of women and minorities at the expense of white males. Wealth was concentrated before, in the hands of those white males, but more important was <b>relative position</b>. This phenomenon has been well studied. It's not how much money you have, it's how much more you have than those in your approximate class. I assume you have read about this.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470692&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="R7Vvx3nLyx3osivUtfbEiw8uzXj8cQzDLLwIqpTy7D8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 03 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470692">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470693" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462256147"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#15<br /> "If people feel despair because they can no longer feel superior to other people, my sympathy is greatly diminished."</p> <p>So would mine be, but you're reducing despair to one possible psychological cause, while ignoring other psychological causes, and, more importantly, the economic reasons for despair.</p> <p>"If they choose to be anti-union, which most of these people do, that is their problem, not mine."</p> <p>To me, this is an example of blaming the victim. There are law firms that specialize in union busting. Many companies oppose unions and persecute organizers. Republican governors and legislatures have repeatedly passed anti-union laws. The mine workers union has been an important line of defense for the people you condemn.</p> <p>No, I'm not missing the point about wealth concentration. Once again you're reducing economy to psychology. It is undebatable that the wealthiest Americans are receiving and possess a greater portion of America's wealth than they did 40 years ago. Looking at the relative positions of the losers doesn't change that.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470693&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DYxwiBrR_15xL6ZwHA50BwTKBwInIezrgwWB5XCg9mw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 03 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470693">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470694" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462258612"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>Yes, I absolutely agree that wealth concentration is a problem-- but it is in fact an objective economic one. It distorts the working of markets and leads to economic difficulties for everyone except the wealthy.</p> <p>But you are the one who brings up psychology when you talk about despair and societal responses. </p> <p>As for "blaming the victim", I don't really think in terms of "blame" but whether I feel sympathy and/or empathy. We can't ignore the history. The South has traditionally been anti-union. The South also did not worry about mill workers in New England losing jobs when companies "onshored" there to access lower wages and less environmental regulation.</p> <p>The point is, those people were <i>content</i> to make less money and have wealthy overlords as long as they could feel superior to minorities and women. Now, we still don't see the nice "solidarity forever" sentiment from those great old union songs; they don't want to raise everyone up together, but rather round up the dirty Mexicans and ship them off. </p> <p>And you know that is completely illogical. Change will come when the US underclass stops allowing itself to be divided and conquered because they are afraid of people who look different.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470694&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="j2sI8JCyqvnBjyrDQckaJcBRBXdUrVV4HHMsbNPg2VA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 03 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470694">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470695" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462276954"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#17<br /> I think we've gotten a little too far from the point of departure, which was a greater focus on climate change in the election. A number of real economic factors have resulted in a real economic breakdown for many Americans, and for many simply getting by is the first priority. Many Americans are experiencing a sense of insecurity. This goes for people of all races and ethnicities. For many white Americans, this is coupled with diminished expectations. To the extent that addressing climate change is perceived to make getting by even more difficult, addressing climate change will be more difficult. This is why I'm arguing to tie climate change to the economic (and human) effects of extreme weather, and to other climate related factors that constitute a threat to economic and physical well-being. The obverse is to point out the advantages of dealing with the problem, also the economic advantages. Can we agree on this?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470695&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="L-q8vzQUWl8j8TV46tVESG4OoeqzzxvM3SuNdlFuBrs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 03 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470695">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470696" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462280940"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>I don't think we "disagree"; but maybe you have a different goal in mind.</p> <p>I want Hillary to win, and even more so I want down-ticket Democrats to win. If that happens, and climate change is never mentioned, I will be happy, and I think progress will be made on the FF issue by the new government.</p> <p>I can only go by my best strategic/tactical instincts as a long-time political junkie on this, and I don't think putting CC front and center actually helps that much with the groups you are talking about. </p> <p>Of course it is necessary to show that Dems are on the side of environmental responsibility, but that comes within the context of infrastructure spending and job creation. So, "we're going to do create jobs in renewables <b>rather than</b> in FF extraction" is the correct platform. This may seem overly subtle parsing to you, but I think it is important.</p> <p>What I do disagree about (which may be Greg's thinking if not yours) is that what is said in the campaign will affect what policies are actually implemented after the election. The reality is that this depends on the makeup of Congress as much as anything. If it is a big Dem victory, I'm sure Bernie will introduce a carbon-tax bill, and if it passes (which will require compromise of course) Hillary would sign it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470696&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Fwhyx0JMjRHvyyhf6nNLA0oEZnTfAe3NGIxLHpzevMs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 03 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470696">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470697" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462327981"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#19</p> <p>"I don’t think we “disagree”; but maybe you have a different goal in mind.</p> <p>I want Hillary to win, and even more so I want down-ticket Democrats to win."</p> <p>This implies that I don't appreciate how important it is for the Democratic candidates to win. No one has argued more consistently about the need to defeat the Republicans than I.</p> <p>"...and I don’t think putting CC front and center actually helps that much with the groups you are talking about."</p> <p>My argument has not been about "putting CC front and center," but about tying it to issues that have higher resonance, thereby showing how far-reaching climate change is in its effects. Please take another look at what I wrote in #7.</p> <p>"So, 'we’re going to do create jobs in renewables <b>rather than</b> in FF extraction' is the correct platform. This may seem overly subtle parsing to you, but I think it is important."</p> <p>This is a straw man. No one has suggested that associating renewables with job creation is incorrect. The job creating potential of renewable energy is one of the issues climate change awareness should be tied to. To the extent that your argument is a repetition of your focus on positive messaging, I would repeat that fear, as the Trump campaign has demonstrated, is a powerful motivator, and note that fear and hope are related. This is about dialectics, not either/or. In areas plagued by fossil fuel related pollution, it would make sense to talk about that threat, and also how it can be dealt with. In areas threatened by rising sea levels, it would be foolish to ignore that. An argument for renewable or clean energy is at the same time an argument against non-renewable or dirty energy. </p> <p>"What I do disagree about (which may be Greg’s thinking if not yours) is that what is said in the campaign will affect what policies are actually implemented after the election. The reality is that this depends on the makeup of Congress as much as anything."</p> <p>Another misrepresentation. Another straw man. Neither Greg nor I have argued that the makeup of Congress is inconsequential. The only ones who seem to ignore the importance of Congress are some of the less reflective Bernie supporters, and I don't think you can find any evidence that Greg or I belong to that category. My own position has been that this election is not about major new reforms, which because of Congress will be dead on arrival, but about preventing the Republicans from eviscerating approximately 100 years of progress. But does what is said in the campaign have other consequences? Indeed it does.</p> <p>This is my last contribution to this discussion.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470697&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wLysSwbbg7uh-dahWg80vOqJQJ5k8hCzkL3OtGKMRik"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 03 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470697">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/04/29/climate-or-bust-sanders-and-clinton-should-step-up-now%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:04:35 +0000 gregladen 33925 at https://scienceblogs.com Falsehood: "Voters are kept from political involvement by the rules" https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/28/falsehood-voters-are-kept-from-political-involvement-by-the-rules <span>Falsehood: &quot;Voters are kept from political involvement by the rules&quot;</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Voting is not party involvement.</p> <p>We hear a lot of talk these days about "voters" being repressed in their attempt to be involved in the Democratic primary process. There may be something to that, and it might be nice to make it easier for people to wake up on some (usually) Tuesday morning and go and vote in a Democratic or Republican primary or visit a caucus. But there is a difference between a desire for a reform and the meaningful understanding of that reform -- why we want it, how to do it, and what it will get us -- that makes it important to do what we Anthropologists sometimes call "problemetizing the concept."</p> <p>We can start with the statement that in the primary system, "Voters should not be kept from involvement by rules that make it impossible for them to engage in the democratic (small "d") process." That sentence seems reasonable, even important, and is essentially a call for open, instead of closed, primaries, or in some cases, for replacing a caucus with a primary. </p> <p>The first part of the sentence that is problematic is the word "voters." Yes, people who vote in a primary are voting, and thus voters, but that is not really what a voter is in our democratic system. A voter is a person who votes in the general election for a constitutional candidate. The constitutional candidates got on the ballot, usually, through our party system in which a formally recognized party puts someone on the ballot by filling out the right paper work and following a bunch of law-based rules and some other rules that the party itself makes up. The person who goes and votes in a primary is doing something subtly but importantly different. They are participating in the party's process of selecting a candidate. In theory, this could be done with no voting. It could be done by people meeting several times to pick surrogates, who will be delegates to a convention. Even when it seems like one is visiting a polling location and casting a vote for a candidate, that is not really what you are doing. You are actually casting a vote that will be put together with all of the other votes cast in that state for use in a formula that will cause chosen delegates to vote a certain way on the first ballot at a national convention, after which they can do (more or less) what they want. </p> <p>I've seen people use the word "elect" and "election" in reference to what people are doing during the primary process. But we are not doing that. The statement that "Voters should not be kept from involvement by rules that make it impossible for them to engage in the democratic process." is improperly framed, because what happens in the primary process does not really involve voters, but rather, individuals who are participating in a party's process in a way that often involves casting a ballot, but really not a ballot for a particular candidate.</p> <p>Now lets travel down the sentence a bit farther until we get to the phrase "kept from." </p> <p>There are a lot of ways to keep someone from casting a ballot or caucusing that are bad and that should be fixed. In Minnesota we cast our presidential preference ballot during a one hour time period at a large building (usually a school) with inadequate parking, often far from where people live, not on a bus route, in the dark (lots of people don't drive in the dark), under conditions that are dauntingly chaotic. It is assumed, almost certainly correctly, that this causes a lot of people to not even show up. If an insufficient number of polling places is arranged so it takes hours of waiting to pick your candidate, or if you show up and somehow you are not allowed to vote because your name has been incorrectly removed from the registration list, or something along those lines, then you are being kept out. These and similar things are bad and should be fixed.</p> <p>But a lot of the "kept from" stuff is not about any of that. Rather, it is about the particular rules a party uses (or all the parties in a state, in some cases) that the participant must know about and follow in order to be involved in the process. In New York you have to be registered in a party to vote in that party's primary. In New Hampshire it, a registered Democrat must vote in the Democratic Primary, a registered Republican can vote in the Republican primary, and a registered Independent can pick at the last second which of those two party's primary to vote in. I'll discuss in a moment why these rules a) should be changed and b) shouldn't be changed. For now, though, we need to recognize that these are not things done to keep one from involvement. They are simply the rules for being involved. Potential party primary participants who are kept out of the process because of these rules are, essentially, repressing themselves (sadly). </p> <p>Now let's go even further down the sentence ("Voters should not be kept from involvement by rules that make it impossible for them to engage in the democratic process.") and look at the word "involvement." </p> <p>I've already implied that involvement in the primary or caucus process is not the same thing as voting, even if you think you are voting at the time, because you really aren't quite voting for a candidate (I quickly add that yes, this is true with the Electoral College as well, but generally we feel that we have an inalienable right to vote in the general election for all sorts of candidates, and only one of those offices is somewhat indirect, and perhaps it shouldn't be). </p> <p>Involvement is not casting a ballot in a primary or standing on a table holding up a sign in a caucus one time. Involvement is bigger than that. </p> <p>Consider Sorkin's Rule "Decisions are made by those who show up." That is actually not true. Important decisions about complicated things require multiple conversations, meetings, etc. The actual rule should be "Decisions are made by those who show up. And then show up a few more times." </p> <p>I suspect that the majority of people who are pointing at long established party rules and complaining about being kept form involvement really don't want to be "involved" in the way it takes to really be involved because it takes a fair amount of work. Rather, people seem to want to vote for a candidate and go home, and have that be all there is to it, and have it count. But involvement is actually more complicated than that, and may require more work than that.</p> <p>For example, consider the recent caucus in Minnesota. </p> <p>We don't actually caucus for president here, although it is called that. Rather, we cast a vote (as described above) just like in a primary, but a rather badly done primary. In Minnesota, as well as in other states, that vote ultimately determines only one thing: how will the delegates that the state sends to the national convention vote on the first ballot. If you want a particular candidate to survive an open convention, or if you want your candidate's party platform planks to be considered, you better send a delegate supporting your candidate to the national convention somehow, and do some other things. To do this, you will have to show up not just once, but a couple or a few times. </p> <p>In Minnesota, we had that preference ballot, and at the same event (the precinct caucus) people were able to present resolutions, which could ultimately be part of the party platform if approved by enough people. The resolutions that go through this process <em>are</em> the party platform, and the party platform doesn't come from anywhere else. So resolutions are presented at the precinct caucus, and voted on, and if approved, go on to the next level. Also, at this precinct caucus, delegates are selected to go forward in the process. </p> <p>A few weeks later, there is a Senate District convention. All the precinct level resolutions are listed on a ballot, and the delegates that moved forward can vote on them. Delegates are welcome to rise in support or opposition of a resolution, and there is discussion among all the delegates of these resolutions. So the voting itself is a democratic process, but that process is enhanced by a conversation at which questions can be raised and answered and issues can be clarified. The resolutions that are passed on will likely become part of the state party's platform. </p> <p>A this event, the delegates select among themselves a smaller set of delegates that will go on to the next level (Congressional District or County). Those delegates will form the pool from which the national delegates are ultimately chosen, and they will vote on other party issues at higher levels of the caucus process. </p> <p>That, folks, is involvement. If you go forward to this level and participate, you have influenced the party platform, and you have influenced which actual people go forward as delegates. Maybe you yourself will even be one of these delegates. </p> <p>Sticking for a moment with Minnesota, let me tell you what happened at my caucuses, because it is illustrative of a key point I'm trying to make here. </p> <p>There were about twice as many votes cast in the presidential preference ballot than individuals who stayed in the room to participate. The people in the room were the usual Democrats who show up every two or for years, among whom were several Clinton supporters and several Sanders supporters. I'm pretty sure the two people running the show included one Clinton supporter (my guess) and one Sanders supporter (I know that for a fact. Hi Robin.) </p> <p>Note to Sanders supporters: Those of you who voted and left gave up an opportunity for involvement. Casing your ballot was easy, and thank you for doing that. But it wasn't enough. </p> <p>Also in the room were about a dozen Sanders supporters who I'm pretty sure (and in some cases, I'm certain of this) had not participated in the process before, ever, even though their ages ran from just eligible to vote to mid 40s or so. The chair of the caucus asked for a show of hands of how many people were new to the process. Several hands went up, and the rest of us cheered them and welcomed them. In other words, what some might call the "party insiders" (people who show up again and again) welcomed the noobies, and were very happy to have them there. So this was about a 50-50 mix of Clinton-Sanders supporters cheering on a bunch of new folks who were likely in majority Sanders supporters. </p> <p>It was interesting to see what happened when resolutions were presented. Some of the resolutions caused these newer folks to take notice and ask questions. Two resolutions asked that various aspects of medical coverage for transgender medicine be restored to the state health plan. These provisions had been removed by the Republicans, and the Democrats wanted them back. The Sanders Noobies said things like "this shouldn't apply to kids" and "this is a lifestyle choice, why should it be paid for by taxpayer?" and such. They did not understand that those are issues that have long been dealt with by the medical community, and were not concerns. (Much of this was explained to them by a transgender woman who was in the room). Once the Sanders Noobies understood this, they supported the resolutions (mainly, there were a couple of conservatives who voted against several liberal resolutions, which is of course their right). The same thing, roughly, happened with two or three other resolutions having to do with issues of race and racism. </p> <p>That was fantastic. Sanders supporters, involved in the political process for the first time, were engaged in a conversation in which they became more aware of certain issues, and asked questions, and had a conversation. </p> <p>Note to Sanders supporters: Those of you who stayed at the caucus meeting contributed to the conversation and learned more about the issues. That was involvement. Thank you for doing that. </p> <p>At the Senate caucus, the resolutions were available to vote on, and there was extensive conversation about them. The conversation was so extensive that the chair of the caucus noted that he had never seen such involvement. Oh, and by the way, he also asked for a show of hands of those who were there for the first time. There were many, and the rest of us applauded and cheered them, and thanked them. </p> <p>The Senate District Caucus, as noted, selects a subset of delegates to go forward. This was done as a walking caucus, and because of the way a walking caucus works, people were divided up into groups that had a candidate's name (or uncommitted) along with an issue. For example, "Sanders and wealth inequality" or "Clinton and health care" or "Uncommitted and education," etc. </p> <p>The number of delegates that were elected to go on were about 50-50 Sanders vs. Clinton. (Slightly more for Clinton than Sanders.) In other words, a Sanders win in the presidential ballot preference (at the Precinct Caucus) was erased with respect to the delegates that went forward. Our Precinct caucus was allowed to send some 12 delegates forward, but only about 6 people volunteered, and of those, only two showed up at the Senate District Caucus. </p> <p>Decisions are made by those who show up. <em>Multiple times</em>. </p> <p>So the outcome of this process was that the ratio of Sanders to Clinton delegates who would support one of the candidates in a second ballot, or in convention business, or with the party platform, from our caucus, does not reflect the presidential ballot exactly because Sanders supporters did not show up. I checked on some other Senate District Caucuses, and others had better numbers for Sanders, but I think the final outcome is close to 50-50. </p> <p>Note to Sanders supporters: Showing up at the precinct caucus to cast a presidential ballot, and then not showing up again, was not enough. </p> <p>A walking caucus is a bit complicated, and there is a way to do it to maximize a preferred outcome in terms of delegates passed on to the next level. I note that the Clinton supporters at that event did so, but the Sanders supporters probably lost one delegate because the were imperfect in their strategy. Why were thy imperfect? Because this process, which is highly democratic, grass roots, conversational, and all that, is also a little complicated. In order to do it right, it is helpful to have a number of people who know what they are doing (because they did it once or twice before, or got a half hour of lessons form someone who knows how to do it ... very doable) on your side. The Sanders Noobs, bless their pointy heads, may have lost one delegate because they did not show up multiple times over the long term (from year to year) and the Sanders campaign did not bother to engage in the "ground game" in Minnesota. </p> <p>This illustrates a problem with democracy. The problem is not that the process is necessarily complicated so the good guys lose. The problem is that having a real conversation and real involvement is not simple, and requires a little more effort. This puts a small disadvantage on the insurgent, but only a small one. The outcome is that people show up, talk, listen, learn, influence, make things happen. </p> <p>A word about New Hampshire, as promised. </p> <p>In New Hampshire, you register for a party (Democratic or Republican) or as an independent. This registration then limits your choices for what happens in a primary (so it is a semi-closed primary). People who say they want the rules changed to allow better involvement object to this. If you are a Republican who decides you prefer a Democrat, you can't vote for the Democrat. That is, of course, not really true because this is not the general election, it is the primary, but whatever. </p> <p>Here's the thing, though. If you are an independent in New Hampshire, you are a special political snowflake. The activists and campaigners in both major parties have your name (you are registered) and will court you and buy you coffee and talk to you and visit you and call you on the phone and give you a lot of attention, and pay careful attention to what you say. You are the subset of people who will determine the outcome of the primary, in many cases. This is a situation where the rules, which are restrictive, actually enhance and amplify involvement for those who register in this manner. </p> <p>Something like this happens at a different level of intensity with party registration in general. Even where there is no registration in a party (like in Minnesota, we don't register here), there is a list of probable party supporters. This underlies strategies for mailings, coffee clutches in homes, door to door visits, etc. Here's a hint: If you want to have a bit more influence in the process, donate five dollars to a candidate. You and your views will be attended to, at least to some extent. </p> <p>A word about party platforms. People say, without evidence generally, that party platforms are not important, that no one pays attention to them. At the state level, this is simply not true. The party platform is the legislative agenda of the party. The success of a party's effort during a legislative session is measured by the degree to which the party platform, which was determined by the people who showed up --<em> multiple times</em> -- was put into effect. Seated legislators and governors take credit for their implementation of the platform, or find reasons to explain (often blaming the other party) why planks from the platform were not implemented, in their campaign speeches, campaign literature, and appeals for funding. </p> <p>It might be true that these things matter less at the national level, but there are some good reasons for that. National policy implementation is often more reactionary than at the state level because politics are often shaped by unexpected international events or an uncooperative economy. But it still matters. </p> <p>Now, back to Minnesota for a moment, for another stab at problematizing the premise. All that caucus stuff I'm talking about allows involvement by citizens to shape the political future at the local, state, and national levels. But we often hear that a simple primary, where you just vote and go home, counts as better, or more real, or more meaningful involvement in the political process. (This of course ignores the fact that voting in a primary does not influence the party platform or other party issues.) </p> <p>In Minnesota we also have a primary. It happens late in the process. One of the main objectives of the caucus system is to endorse candidates for Congress, and rat the state level and below (but not municipal, usually). The caucuses can endorse a candidate, but that endorsement does not mean that the candidate is put forward by the party. The candidate is only put forward if they get the majority of votes in the primary. Often, probably almost all the time in fact, the various candidates for a particular office fight for the endorsement, then drop out if they don't get it. But sometimes one of those candidates, or an entirely different candidate that was not even involved in the endorsement process, puts their name in the primary and runs. </p> <p>The reason this is interesting and important vis-a-vis the key points I'm making here is this. The system that many seem to prefer because they think it is true involvement (and anyone can vote in either primary, there are no restrictions, in Minnesota) actually has the potential to circumvent and obviate the grass roots endorsement process. It allows a person with means to swoop in and become the party's nominee. This happened recently two times. In one case, a person of means swooped in and took the party's nomination form the endorsed candidate for governor. He won the election and became one of the best governors we've ever had. In a different case, a person with means swooped in to try to take the party's nomination at the primary from a highly regarded much loved State Auditor, who had been endorsed. In that case, the swooper spent piles of money on the primary but was roundly shellacked, losing in an historic landslide. </p> <p>Note to those who want to switch to having a simple primary for everything because it allows for more democratic involvement by the citizens; No, it doesn't. </p> <p><em>"Voters should not be kept from involvement by rules that make it impossible for them to engage in the democratic (small "d") process." </em></p> <p>It is not a simple truth that closed primaries or caucuses limit involvement. That can happen, but limitations (i.e., as in New Hampshire) can increase involvement. Citizens who want to be involved but found this difficult because they did not know or follow the rules have repressed their own involvement. Personally, I would advocate for open caucuses or open primaries, so I don't disagree with the proposals being made so vocally these days. But I think that many who are calling for such reform do not really understand why we want it, how to do it, and what it will get us, and what we might in some cases lose from it.</p> <p>The caucus system is better than the primary system in many ways, because it encourages and allows a lot of involvement. But in those instances were we are basically voting for a preference, the caucus system can be stifling. We need to ask what we want, how to do it, and what it will get us, at a more detailed level, and then find solutions that may in some cases be hybrids, or may in some cases require only minor tweaking in the system. </p> <p>I think people need to ask themselves why they are independents. Some people are independents because they dislike the party system, but I'm sure they are wrong to think that. Parties are organizations that give voice and power to regular people. We should work towards enhancing that effect, not tossing it like bathwater out the window. Others recognize that being independent gives them a bit more political power than being a party member, in some cases. Those folks have a problem in states where not being registered in a party takes you out of the primary process. Those individuals have to decide if they want to engage in a party system for a given year or not, or they need to advocate for an open system in their state. I recommend following the first strategy immediately -- learn the rules and use the party system when appropriate --- while advocating long term for the second strategy. What I do not recommend is complaining about a system you don't fully understand and demanding specific changes that would actually reduce, rather than increase, your involvement. </p> <p>I also suggest that people do two other things. One is to remember that the primary system is a totally different process than the general election. In a way, you can't actually suppress voting in a primary, because a primary (or caucus) is a way a party, which could select nominees in any of a number of ways, reaches out the the people. Furthermore, you are not really voting for a candidate, but for delegates, and by voting and walking away, you are not really even doing that. </p> <p>The other thing is to understand the numbers better. This is a bit of a digression from the main points of this post, but important. Remember my comments above about percentages of Sanders vs. Clinton supporters in various subsets of people at these events. It is not the case that the "party faithful" or "established Democrats" (people who show up multiple times) are Clinton supporters and the Noobs are Sanders supporters. Yes, there are differences in proportion, but evidence from Minnesota belies this oversimplification. My best guess is that about half the established Democrats (we call ourselves DFLers here) in Minnesota are for Sanders, and half are for Clinton, but Sanders won the presidential preference ballot because some extra people who were mainly Sanders supporters showed up. But then many of those Sanders supporters did not show up multiple times. The influence they had was to put the state in the Sanders win column, but remember the numbers. Sanders only got a couple of more national delegates than Clinton, and in the end the two candidates will have the same number of supporters, I predict, at the convention. So, the only influence there is in one -- critical but singular -- event at the convention, the first ballot. </p> <p>Democracy is great, and democracy is hard. There are reforms that are necessary, but gravitating towards easy, thinking that enhances democracy, is foolish. If you make it too easy it will not be as great. </p> <p>And, really, it isn't all that hard. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Thu, 04/28/2016 - 04:17</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/falsehoods" hreflang="en">Falsehoods</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/falsehoods-ii" hreflang="en">Falsehoods II</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/uncategorized" hreflang="en">Uncategorized</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/how-caucuses-work" hreflang="en">How caucuses work</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/how-primaries-work" hreflang="en">How primaries work</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/policy" hreflang="en">Policy</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470676" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461849360"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg,</p> <p><i>Why</i> would you "advocate for open primaries"?</p> <p>I would advocate for strictly closed primaries. And beyond my preference, there is no legal way to enforce selection by open primary voting on parties anyway.</p> <p>If people <i>payed</i> to be able to vote in my party's primary, thinking their vote would be determinative, it would be a different matter, of course, but then it wouldn't be "open".</p> <p>But it is a tough argument to make that just showing up and voting creates any contractual obligation.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470676&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SZB1VUIO5WWR1CYxusoxib7pTTz59ekuXRqE8jN7JnQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 28 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470676">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470677" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1462261689"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>From over here in the UK, the idea that people who aren't dues-paying party members (or dues-paying members of affiliated organisations such as trades unions) should get a say in selecting candidates seems very strange indeed.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470677&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wJbbyZFhUO8LVZtpyBpvPc8icnnExsp-cuHqj-VYuzQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Dunc (not verified)</span> on 03 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470677">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/04/28/falsehood-voters-are-kept-from-political-involvement-by-the-rules%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:17:58 +0000 gregladen 33924 at https://scienceblogs.com Who won the Democratic Primaries in PA, CT, RI, DE, and MD? https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/26/who-won-the-democratic-primaries-in-pa-ct-ri-de-and-md <span>Who won the Democratic Primaries in PA, CT, RI, DE, and MD?</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Reports are just coming in, and as if often the case, Trump is already being declared winner in some states. But the Democratic primaries are different ... there are actually two candidates who get delegates instead of just one ... so it takes a little longer to count up the votes.</p> <p>As a reminder, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/22/tuesdays-democratic-primaries-clinton-favored-in-all-polls-but-sanders-will-win-two/">these are my predictions for today's primaries</a>. I predict a Clinton win in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but a Sanders win in Connecticut and Rhode Island.</p> <p>However, I have less confidence in these predictions than usual because I think something is happening in the campaign. I think, given the devastating results in New York for Sanders, a certain percentage of would be Sanders supporters are going to have given up, or at least, will be less excited, and thus less likely to vote. Things are pretty close in these states, so a small effect like that can wipe out a small lead. </p> <p></p><h2>Democratic Primary Results:</h2> <p>The following table gives my predicted delegate counts for each race (on the left) and the outcome of today's primaries, estimated by percentage of the popular vote, on the right.</p> <p><a href="/files/gregladen/files/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2016-04-27-at-7.15.19-AM.png" rel="attachment wp-att-22446"><img src="/files/gregladen/files/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2016-04-27-at-7.15.19-AM.png" alt="Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 7.15.19 AM" width="616" height="222" class="alignright size-full wp-image-22446" /></a></p> <p>The two candidates did about as well as projected by me, with Sanders actually doing very slightly better. Compared to the polls, however, Clinton may have done better than expected, depending on which polls you like. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Tue, 04/26/2016 - 13:11</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/delaware-primary" hreflang="en">Delaware Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/maryland-primary" hreflang="en">Maryland Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/pennsylvania-primary" hreflang="en">Pennsylvania Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/results" hreflang="en">Results</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/rhode-island-primary" hreflang="en">Rhode Island Primary</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470639" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461692387"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Probably ought to add the state names. Jus' sayin'...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470639&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kBXnhVr2oQrcOpMDTYNxEZJ5Rt0qZHXeTYY1T6VtN1o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470639">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470640" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461692528"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>There ya go.. (Your modeling skill puts Nate Silver to shame, BTW.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470640&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hiflFTyDyqjszRbgH2aM3s8cVAoedu3VOamDJtL0dqs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470640">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470641" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461749539"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The Washington Post (Apr. 27, page A1) pointed out that, "... Sanders won in tiny Rhode Island, the only state where independents could vote in the Democratic contest." So there, perhaps, his supporters were more likely to vote.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470641&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Q_xCuv7t41U6HIO1G0HcZNksv4IKKt3hdC09Pfzc1e4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Charlie Dorian (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470641">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470642" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461760927"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bernie's supporters went skydiving without parachutes...</p> <p>"I'm an independent, and I want to elect an independent candidate!!"</p> <p>"I'm sorry, you're not registered to vote in this election. Move along..."</p> <p>"No! I want to vote for Bernie!"</p> <p>"You should have registered as a Democrat. It's too late now. You can vote in the general election in November. Move along now."</p> <p>"But.. But.. But if I don't get to vote for him now, he won't be on the ballot in November!"</p> <p>"Hmm... You should have thought about that earlier. Too bad. Now if you'll excuse me..."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470642&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YYiOwqB4KW9qeZXO9sXc_Xy8uHkjKcL4XTnFyKLEbv8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470642">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/04/26/who-won-the-democratic-primaries-in-pa-ct-ri-de-and-md%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:11:01 +0000 gregladen 33922 at https://scienceblogs.com Tuesday's Democratic Primaries: Clinton favored in all polls, but Sanders will win two https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/22/tuesdays-democratic-primaries-clinton-favored-in-all-polls-but-sanders-will-win-two <span>Tuesday&#039;s Democratic Primaries: Clinton favored in all polls, but Sanders will win two</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Between now and the end of the primary season, I expect Sanders to pick up more delegates than Clinton, in total, by a very small margin. </p> <p>On Tuesday, April 26th, there will be primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. That's 384 pledged delegates at stake. </p> <p>Polls put Clinton ahead in all these states, but not all the polls are current and not all the Clinton leads are strong.</p> <blockquote><p><strong>Added Note:</strong> </p> <p><em>I noticed some very strong reactions in the comments section from people apparently (but not very clearly) accusing me of making up numbers to make it look like Sanders will win some races (esp California?), with the presumption that I'm a Sanders supporter.</em></p> <p>Those of you who have been following my writings on the campaign will know that for the first several weeks of the primary season, until very recently, I did not support one or the other candidate. I like them both. And, if you like either of them, and you know anything at all about American politics, you'll like the other as well, though of course you are entitled to have a strong preference. Either way, it is impossible to like one of these two candidates and not prefer the other over either Trump or Cruz (or any Republican who ran this year). If you do like any of those Republicans over one or the other Democratic candidate, please note that most people looking at you will be thinking "WTF"? </p> <p>Anyway, the analysis I use to make these predictions is something that I have been developing and refining since the very first days of the primary season, and it is a dispassionate unbiased statistical prediction, and has nothing whatsoever to do with which candidate I support. </p> <p>If you are making an assumption that I support, say, Sanders, and that is why I wrote this post, then I'm pretty sure that you've not read the post. Why do I say that? Read the whole post and find out!</p></blockquote> <p>My model, as you know, has been doing a pretty good job at predicting outcomes in this year's Democratic primary process. And, that poll says that Clinton will win three states, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and garner a total of about 221 delegates, and Sanders will win two states, Connecticut and Rhode Island, getting a total of 163 delegates. </p> <p>Note that my expected spread in Pennsylvania is actually very close. Clinton is firmly ahead in the polls, my model says she'll squeak by, and my model has done better than polls in many instances. Who knows, maybe Sanders will win there?</p> <p>Delaware and Rhode Island are really close, and could go either way. On a related note, there is supposed to be a new poll for Rhode Island coming any second now (there is no current polling there) so that will be interesting. </p> <p>The table at the top of the post shows my projections for Tuesday as well as through the rest of the race. Note that starting Tuesday and running to the end of the primary season, Bernie Sanders is expected to get more delegates than Hillary Clinton, but only 10 more. This a very small number, and the final count could go either way. It would, of course, take Sanders winning a much larger number to catch up to Clinton in pledged delegates. Sanders is behind by 237 delegates. </p> <p>In order for Sanders to close the gap with Clinton, he would have to do 17% better than my model projects from here on out. </p> <p>That does not sound like a lot, but there are two things to consider. First, my model has been very accurate. It has been closer to a few percent off over time, and I don't expect it to suddenly stop working at that point. Second, to the extent that my model is wrong, it tends to under predict Sanders in caucuses and open states, esp. open caucuses. All the remaining contests are primaries, and most of them are closed or semi-closed. </p> <p>Note also that my model conflicts with the polls and common knowledge in California, where I say Sanders will win, and everybody else (except Sanders, I assume) says Clinton will win. Also, note how some of these contests are very close, really too close to call especially Indiana, and Kentucky. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Fri, 04/22/2016 - 08:39</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/bernie-sanders" hreflang="en">Bernie Sanders</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/hillary-clinton" hreflang="en">Hillary Clinton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/pennsylvania-primary" hreflang="en">Pennsylvania Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/tuesdays-primary" hreflang="en">Tuesday&#039;s Primary</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470606" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461388078"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So, Bernie is 237 delegates behind. There are 1326 remaining delegates. If he gains 782 delegates, that will put him one delegate ahead of Hillary. That's 59% of the remaining delegates.</p> <p>No doubt, that would be very hard to achieve. However, the figure reported by the media, including ultra-progressive media like TYT, say that Bernie needs 70% of the remaining delegates. I guess they are calculating what Bernie would need assuming that all the superdelegates that currently are "assigned" to Hillary would still vote for her no matter what.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470606&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eT6iopnxrxGZ-Uotw2J8toY1uBGJP2B_zNUSwgloPYg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Pierre-Normand Houle (not verified)</span> on 23 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470606">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470607" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461397186"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In all fairness, you predicted Florida would be close and that Sanders would win OH, MO, and IL.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470607&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="grlmNaRwmRsSPqhS90L044_JCch3T_l3IBvLlxHNSl8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brian (not verified)</span> on 23 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470607">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470608" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461413125"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I predicted Clinton would win in Florida, and she did. You are right that my model said it would be close, and it was a landslide.</p> <p>I predicted 49:51 in ohio and it was 57:43, a pretty bad prediction. I predicted 49:51 in Missouri, and it was 48:52 at the time, eventually settling to 49.6:49.4. I'm going to say that was a pretty good prediction. Illinois I said 50:50 and it was 50.5:48.7.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470608&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="P9UVpGlcn4hwibMJcMZrkWCC3m54wluZQvaxuiF5caE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 23 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470608">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470609" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461427760"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So why do you think Sander's will win California in contradiction of pretty much everyone else out there? That's a fairly significant difference, and if you're wrong on that, your basic premise that Sander's will win slightly more delegates will be wrong, too. I'm just curious why you differ from conventional wisdom and pretty much every other poll out there?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470609&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Gf5iF-YE8cq-bAkHzFIJZhEqlgErdYFSNTTvx6V4dek"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Charles Payet (not verified)</span> on 23 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470609">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470610" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461487851"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You obviously are Sanders follower .People will say whatever to keep HILLARY out of the WHITE HOUSE .THEY think they have the power to overturn the millions of votes that have been cast for Hillary . Sanders that has been a dormant Dem ,that won't even shear his campaign money to help elect Dems to Senate and congress , thinks he can just walk in a steal all delegates from Hillary !! That is really the Democractic WAY !!!!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470610&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vJutUDlhUEZz-N-6SrfGISo74p9xQyVfP7PZtxqkCXw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Mercedes Perich (not verified)</span> on 24 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470610">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470611" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461489829"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Charles, as is the case with all of these numbers, I don't think. I simply do the analysis. I did several multi- and single variable regression analyses that made sense and found that at this point only one works well, now that we've gotten rid of caucuses and southern states from the sample. </p> <p>This is what I've been doing all along, and this is what has been working better than polling all along. </p> <p>I look at the California result and I think, WTF? But, so far the dispassionate statistically based non-poll based analysis has performed the best.</p> <p>But you are absolutely correct. If sanders doesn't do as well as my model suggests in Cali, he is unlikely to gain slightly on Clinton. On the other hand, at that point it will not matter much because we'll be pretty much at the end of the process except DC, were Clinton will shellac Sanders. </p> <p>My analysis differed from the "conventional wisdom" because my analysis does not use polls and conventional wisdom relies mainly on polls. The fact that I'm more often right this year than conventional wisdom is really interesting. Can't wait to see what happens in four years from now!</p> <p>But having said that, I would be very surprised if this number for Cali works. But we'll see!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470611&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HYN1-5LhV6ccJrybywW_5114rzL4NNdSV0h-ZdgNsn8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 24 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470611">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470612" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461489868"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Mercedes, who is the "obvious sanders supporter" to whom you refer in your comment?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470612&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XxvFnZcBFQ9iVz_l3yevV_Zxl2ktKuMkAqJzVAqME6k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 24 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470612">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470613" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461553828"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Your quote-unquote "predictions" (unlike Sanders I know what "quote-unquote" means) reminds me of the Republicans "predicting" a Romney win in 2016. In fact all of the Berniebruh behavior is identical to ReTHUGliKKKan behavior. And about as successful.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470613&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uJB1eJJzss_ic9yoWM1deOMTEcMV4eFRQxtdB_a3mXY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Khal Draugr (not verified)</span> on 24 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470613">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <div class="indented"> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470614" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461560053"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If I was a Bernie supporter, that might make sense, but I chose Hillary.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470614&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zXqArU93v6p0XhkvIFH0bXDQKoC9q5gTXY0T6oe0i60"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 25 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470614">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> <p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="/comment/1470613#comment-1470613" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Khal Draugr (not verified)</span></p> </footer> </article> </div> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470615" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461563342"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I had ignored this on Facebook:<br /> BUSTED: Pro-Clinton Super PAC Caught Spending $1 Million on Social Media Trolls<br /><a href="http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-super-pac-busted/">http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-super-pac-busted/</a></p> <p>But now I wonder.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470615&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vN58qYzQaWNyWCiKGS_sMThypPuFbZ7LVaPEeKl1T30"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Donal (not verified)</span> on 25 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470615">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470616" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461606453"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg, thank you for the explanation. I'm no expert at statistics by any stretch of the imagination, but at least I kind of know what those analyses mean. :-D. </p> <p>Curious what your take is, though, on Nate Silver's methodology? As I understand it (which might be an incorrect statement to start), he is also using statistical analysis, but based somehow on individual districts? But then again, he's also basing it on polls somehow. Makes my brain hurt, but I try to learn and understand as much as I can.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470616&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lL8tISfonzGhd2O8C8g0wpmDEIV_ZmzfW7wn1u4bbuU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Charles Payet (not verified)</span> on 25 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470616">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470617" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461607815"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>FWIW, my 'pure' demographic model predicts Clinton will win DE and MD, Sanders will win CT, PA, and RI, although CT and PA are within the about 8.5% rms error. The exact numbers are:</p> <p>State, Clinton%<br /> CT48.1<br /> DE64.2<br /> MD78.3<br /> PA46.5<br /> RI40.8</p> <p>Also, currently this model predicts Clinton will win CA with 52.7% of the vote, again, within the 8.5% rms error.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470617&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LF9OSIG--YJQK_C-P2enYFzyImjeby4ti1hX53BLt5M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">RickR (not verified)</span> on 25 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470617">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470618" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461651242"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hm. I am not entirely confident that your model predicts California terribly well. California has relatively few black voters for its size (the LA area is where most are) but Sanders' appeal to Latino voters hasn't been all that great either. He needs to win by a LOT to make much difference, and he needs to improve his standing among black voters (which currently runs at ~30-35% or thereabouts) by a good 10-15 percentage points to get even with Clinton to begin with. Among Latinos I suspect the situation is similar. I bet once the dust clears you'll see a split similar to New York. Clinton will win the biggest population centers in LA and San Diego, and the Central Valley. Sanders will pull support as you go north and get a chunk of San Francisco. The dividing line will run roughly along I-80. </p> <p>I mentioned way back at the Iowa caucuses that Sanders might do well in MA because of the concentration of schools there, but clearly that was wrong. (College students are enthusiastic but true to historical form they have not showed up at the polls). </p> <p>I'd also be interested in whether Sanders' Sandy Hook comments would hurt him in CT. I haven't spoken to any of the Democratic operatives I knew there and that was almost 20 years back; I'd be interested to see what they have to say now. I said before New England was very much the soul of the Democrats and right now it looks like at best an even split for Sanders -- if he's lucky. </p> <p>I could see a narrow race for Sanders in PA as in Michigan, but I wouldn't bet on it. </p> <p>Also, I recall the model had a narrow Sanders win when you started, did it not? Though I also acknowledge that polling in primaries tends to be iffy. </p> <p>I do think that this primary season we've seen the effect of 20 years of politicking and building support, at least on the part of Clinton. We forget that most people are "low information" voters, which doesn't mean they are stupid, just that they have other stuff to do. Caucuses reward the committed, and Sanders' supporters are certainly that. Open Primaries mean that you can rally people who aren't terribly committed to a party (a good thing in some ways) but that population is not as solid as you'd like. Registered party folk are just more likely to come to the voting booth in November. </p> <p>That said primaries reward the person who gets the votes, and Clinton has had an organization in place for decades. And most of us (much as we like to pretend otherwise) will respond to endorsements from people we know. If the guy you voted for backs Clinton then odds are you will respond more favorably to Clinton, just as when your family and friends votes one way there's a strong tendency to follow that. </p> <p>Clinton built up the organization and the votes. Sanders didn't, and now we are seeing the payoff. (This isn't because Sanders is an idiot or anything like that; he just wasn't in a position to run a national campaign before). </p> <p>Could Sanders pull a rabbit out of a hat? Yes, but I suspect he won't. Even if superdelegates didn't exist he'd be in trouble.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470618&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RKBpQblRX2HsN-vmT4U-dKdSIFLwWbc-UHcUKTUcpK0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Jesse (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470618">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470619" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461655585"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>By this time tomorrow, Senator Sanders will know that his nomination will be realistically improbable. Secretary Clinton will gain enough delegates today to make the inevitable very clear. The math looked grim for him before today. I would expect an announcement from his camp by the end of the week.<br /> He did a great job implementing his agenda in her campaign. As long as Trump, &amp; or Cruz, stays on the ballot for Nov., they will do what she could not do on her own, energize the liberal voter to hit the booth( a sadly difficult thing to do). A large voter turnout will not bode well for the GOP. The Dems will get the Senate back for a couple years, &amp; the House is a possibility as well. By late summer, Mitch McConnell will realize that Merit Garland is a sweet deal for the GOP, &amp; will authorize the Senate to get him appointed ASAP. too late to salvage this judicial session, but before they have to consider who the President Elect will offer them, which will undoubtedly look nowhere near as appealing to them as Merit.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470619&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uANDAChHsV6FbP01jsTWbXatZhUtxGCwjsMX1VeM5MQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frederick (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470619">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470620" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461661440"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The Senate can't win with Garland. If they stick to their unconstitutional guns and refuse to consider him, they're in trouble in November. If they consider him, they lost that fight and their own base will turn on them,even though, as you say, get a good deal but their base will not realize it. </p> <p>My preference is a Dem wins in November, the Senate turns, they make the 51% rule, SDO retires, and Clinton/Sanders appoints two justices and boom, the SCOTUS is done for a while.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470620&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1XDJ_1z9zI6B5Re7Mn2Cn2TrjrWdNG99Cd4r4HikSD0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470620">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470621" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461663163"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"SDO retires"? Sandra Day O'Connor retired in 2006. You mean you hope Clarence Thomas retires?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470621&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gnWiFwNnabUrLLh06vkqFC7REJ9IYfWplXrWJ1Q2HXo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470621">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470622" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461668965"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ha. Sorry, I was thinking of RBG. </p> <p>But CT can retire any time he wants, too.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470622&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Z6oQE6BRMeONMMzLeThZxVDPKAVYbq8iLzD6TKxeQqg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470622">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470623" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461673082"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If CT retires, how long would it take before anyone noticed he wasn't there (as in, asking questions, making intelligent comments, etc.)?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470623&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GH2t4L8lkJCybcYZnXPAoCaxqGZ54oQbPjK7c8yQZqI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470623">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470624" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461739512"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Q: does anyone think that a supreme court nominee is a go to issue for voters though? </p> <p>For you it is, for me it is, but is it for most folks who aren't political junkies? How many people can even name a supreme court nominee when it happens? </p> <p>At the end of the day the whole process is a bit insider-y and I've found that such things don't motivate voters a lot, except at the local level where people know the players -- sometimes personally. The further up the ladder you go, the less people seem to care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470624&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="CJfTm9y8YtuIab-Mybku5XL8h_yEGLg3S0k3JK-59Rs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Jesse (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470624">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470625" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461739649"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I think the supreme court actually does figure into a lot of people's thinking, but that is just a supposition on my par. I'm sure there is some info/evidence to test that idea out there somewhere.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470625&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LKT096AjNenA-AncrrFfnI6nSp_j6P6cHBDLpLbGEiU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 27 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470625">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470626" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461761598"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>For right-wingers the Court is a real hot-button issue, because it is [only] the Supreme Court that keeps preventing them from imposing various aspects of Christian Shari'a at the state level. Getting more fanatics appointed to the Court is one of their very top goals. Lefties equally dislike the consequences of certain Court decisions, but seem not to spend as much emotional energy demonizing the justices for it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470626&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ehdKcBPtf-WP4qK3BRB-gtsfvf4cJcHlRvG5sMpuhUA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">jane (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470626">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470627" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1463393696"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>winning or lossing apart the activist in Third World countries are happy that a new narrative has taken roots in American society 99%Vs 1%. Thanks to activism of Bernie Sanders and intellectual work of Joseph Stiglitz, Noam Chomsky , Howard Zinn, Eqbal Ahmed edward Saeed and others. We have collectively inherited this earth and should come to the conclusion in 21st century that all human beings are entitled to live peacefully and in relative prosperity in a global society . A win for Bernie Sanders will augur well for all working class of the world.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470627&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4obTrEwzYZJ_7uIOoA0S3KStCqLbhBCXyBB7Hxsqpe8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ayub Malik (not verified)</span> on 16 May 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470627">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/04/22/tuesdays-democratic-primaries-clinton-favored-in-all-polls-but-sanders-will-win-two%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:39:04 +0000 gregladen 33918 at https://scienceblogs.com Sanders Campaign: The system is NOT rigged against us https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/21/sanders-campaign-the-system-is-not-rigged-against-us <span>Sanders Campaign: The system is NOT rigged against us</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>We hear a lot about how the system is rigged against Sanders and in favor of Clinton. Such yammering is normal for a political campaign, but if you believe it, I'd love to sell you a nice bridge down near New York City.</p> <p>There are two things you need to know. </p> <p>First, the Sanders campaign, according to senior Sanders campaign advisor Ted Devine, does not regard the system as rigged against them. Here's what he said (see below for full video):</p> <blockquote><p>I don't think there is. Unlike the Republicans Trump in particular, we are not going around saying everything is rigged. The rules are as the are. We may not like the rules ... but we've agreed to play by them. </p></blockquote> <p>The second thing you need to know is that the Sanders campaign is in fact using the rules as they are to try to manipulate the system to get more delegates and ultimately win. This includes using Super Delegates to vote against the voters in their states, though Devine claims this is not really what they are doing. But, he also notes that they've already done it in two states, and that if they are really close and technically Clinton has more delegates, then Super Delegates should switch from Clinton to Sanders. More specifically, he states that counting the popular vote number, is not fair. </p> <p>I quickly add that is is very hard to get a coherent strategy from this discussion. </p> <iframe src="http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_devine_160420" height="500" width="635" scrolling="no" border="no"></iframe><p> By the way, I personally think Sanders should "go through to the end" as Devine says. And, I see nothing wrong with manipulating the system that exists. What I object to is the yammering from various quarters about how one side is manipulating and the other side not, implying that doing the same thing on one side is unethical, but not when done by the other side. That is just not rational. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Thu, 04/21/2016 - 02:37</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016-0" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/sanders-strategy" hreflang="en">Sanders Strategy</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470598" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461226160"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>" What I object to is the yammering from various quarters about how one side is manipulating and the other side not, implying that doing the same thing on one side is unethical, but not when done by the other side. That is just not rational."</p> <p>From the standpoint of winning at all costs it may be rational, but it certainly isn't honest and ethical. And it further negates the notion that the race is between purity and impurity.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470598&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PO6prOJaYhTWMBOQg11700WuG5KNnZWr3nSDLu5RZ6M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470598">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470599" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461237557"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Not rigged, but definitely set up to ensure the status quo remains in place. This is the very reason there are super delegates. Too bad in this election, as the differences between Clinton and Sanders on climate change are very significant. And we don't have time to keep waiting for action on that topic.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470599&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cG866-BFSR9CyQyS_3nPuqRIA06ATlczXG-nQFk3vwU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">G (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470599">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <div class="indented"> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470600" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461238597"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Super delegates do not exist to ensure the status quo. Maintaining the status quo is not the original reason they were set up, there was an entirely different reason. Since the were set up in the Democratic Party there has not been a single time the voted against the popular vote. So, sorry, but that is just wrogn. </p> <p>I agree we don't have time to wait in acting on climate change, but actually, their positions are not all that different. Remember, Sanders was the Congressmember and Senator from Vermont, where the only interests he had to protect were Big Ice Cream, Big Syrup, and Gun Ownership, and he protected all three very well. Clinton, on the other hand, was Obama's SOS, and the SOS does not actually get to make policies, and the main Sanders-Clinton differences on climate policy trace back to that.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470600&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tjv1QnKHv0jOfHaQkPw1CUCfAljx6NW9GCcGgD4beDY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470600">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> <p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="/comment/1470599#comment-1470599" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">G (not verified)</span></p> </footer> </article> </div> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470601" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461240216"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."<br /> Debbie Wasserman Schultz<br /><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-questions-like-this-one-from-jake-tapper-to-debbie-wasserman-schultz-video/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470601&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KeOLE8hWYtvLMv9HewirksLRV-MxVpUfRAMEp6E0E4Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Donal (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470601">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470602" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461246604"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Since Gore v Bush, Democrats have been trying to stop the various ways voters are being shut out, chiefly in low income and Afr. American urban areas and university districts. (Purging of voter rolls, limiting number of voting machines, machine 'errors', voter ID laws, etc.) It's clear that this is a Republican strategy, some have even admitted it. So Bernie emerges from Vermont, gets out on the hustings, and discovers this. His followers, mostly new to politics, see it as something being done to stop Bernie, somehow orchestrated by the evil DNC. (If the DNC was only so effective we'd have a better win/loss record.) But those of us who have been committed Dems for the long haul have been fighting hard to defeat these Republican-crafted laws and the goons who implement them. (Secretaries of State, governors and legislators, eg.) This should be a unifying cause for the Bernie revolutionaries, not something to divide us further. And btw, no revolution has even been won when the revolutionaries retreat after one defeat. I hope that Hillary is our next president, but I also hope that the Millennials and other Bernie supporters will keep on pushing for the important changes in government that Bernie has admirably brought to the fore. That is also something that should unite us.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470602&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OUkPUY7kXhE9OCl9t34icdIcf7bzU7DVvCt9lH1xmaA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Susan Lenfestey (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470602">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470603" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461272494"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>NOT</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470603&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sMdY4EUwU2hPZr3qBhrVe3wMmjNH_o5HlbXW3DtijEg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Paul Murray (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470603">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470604" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461272692"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Not sure I understand how "manipulating the system" is different from "working within the system as it was designed to be used".</p> <p>Back when I was a callow youth, I decided one day to beat the speed cameras by going into what I called "stealth mode" - just drifting along at 5k below the limit. It soon occurred to men that I was not "beating the system" at all - I was simply avoiding speeding tickets by obeying the law.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470604&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZOwNC0yAR-XSpZ80sspIwWm-JDA1RIXD6qql44PUQ7w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Paul Murray (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470604">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470605" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461298362"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Good to hear Bernie's campaign manager rejecting the conspiracy theories and other nonsense.</p> <p>Yes Bernie should stay in the race and on the ballot. If it appears that Hillary has the delegates to win the nomination, then Bernie should campaign for unity and strength, and encourage everyone to do the hard work of getting out the vote in the general election.</p> <p>I'll be voting for him in California, because I believe that the Bernie vote sends the message to the Democratic party that it needs to embrace more of the progressive values that Bernie has been advocating. And I'll be voting for Hillary in the general (assuming she gets the nomination, which is a very safe assumption) because she's smart, sane, caring, and competent, and because whichever Republican we're facing in November will be none of the above and a catastrophe seeking to happen.</p> <p>Re. Paul @ 7: Another good cure for speeding is to plug in a ScanGauge in your car (costs about $200), which will show you instant and cumulative mileage per gallon. With that feedback, one learns to drive in a manner that substantially increases fuel efficiency, something we all need to do. And one of the things that goes along with that is driving just a bit below the speed limit where it's safe to do so. QED no more speeding, no more tickets, and fuel efficiency that's 10 - 15% or more above the vehicle's official ratings.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470605&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="h8xvqrLS3SIBbOpp4pbaPygmm84pEqXB7NRqI0csbVI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">G the original (not verified)</span> on 22 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470605">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/04/21/sanders-campaign-the-system-is-not-rigged-against-us%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:37:50 +0000 gregladen 33917 at https://scienceblogs.com Who Won The New York Democratic Primary, and Why? https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/19/who-won-the-new-york-democratic-primary-and-why <span>Who Won The New York Democratic Primary, and Why?</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><del datetime="2016-04-20T01:54:08+00:00">I don't know yet, but as soon as I do, I'll post that below.</del> </p> <p>With 98.5% of the delegates counted, Clinton won 57.9% of the vote, Sanders 42.1%. This puts Clinton at 139 delegates, very close to my prediction of 137. </p> <div style="width: 528px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/gregladen/files/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2016-04-19-at-10.03.07-PM.png" rel="attachment wp-att-22401"><img src="/files/gregladen/files/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2016-04-19-at-10.03.07-PM.png" alt="Clinton closing in on 57%, or about 140 delegates. " width="518" height="559" class="size-full wp-image-22401" /></a> Clinton closing in on 57%, or about 140 delegates. </div> <p>If that holds, this is pretty much of a shellacking for Sanders. Sanders out spent Clinton on ad buys, has campaigned heavily, and has set the expectations as a definitive win. This is Sanders home state (of birth, not representation). Yet he seems to have definitively lost. This will put Sanders even more behind in the delegate count.</p> <p><a href="/files/gregladen/files/2016/04/Sen.-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton.jpg" rel="attachment wp-att-22395"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2016/04/Sen.-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-300x260.jpg" alt="Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton" width="300" height="260" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-22395" /></a>The bigger the loss for Sanders, the bigger the steaming pile of bull substance will be put forth by that presumably-tiny-and-hillary-has-them-too-yadayada Sanders supporters, with claims that the election was unfair, stolen, etc. And that will probably turn off even more people undecided between the candidate, and Sanders will do even worse in future contests. I've predicted that he will win in California, and I'll stick to that story until my own analysis suggests otherwise, but it won't be enough to offset his current deep-second position, Clinton's increasing lead, and all that.</p> <p>You know what they say. It ain't over until the big green lady with the torch sings. </p> <p>And she just did.</p> <p><strong>ORIGINAL POST FULL OF INSIGHT AND WONDER:</strong></p> <p>Meanwhile, some background on a key aspect of today's Democratic primary in New York.</p> <p>This is a closed primary in a state where you have to be registered in a political party by some time in October in order to participate. </p> <p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/12/democratic-primary-2008-vs-2016-delegate-math/">See this for more information about how that sort of thing varies across the states. </a></p> <p>I have projected that Clinton will win this primary, and my estimate for the delegate take is 137 for Clinton and 110 for Sanders. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/18/who-will-win-the-new-york-democratic-primary/">See this for a detailed breakdown of this and other projections for the rest of the race. </a></p> <p>But, is this what will happen? Clinton does better than Sanders in southern states, and New York is not a southern state. In fact, Clinton tends to win all of the southern states, and while Sanders wins more non-southern states than Clinton, he certainly does not win all of them. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/15/southern-voters-prefer-clinton-others-mixed/">See this for more details on the southern effect.</a> </p> <p>New York is a big state, and Clinton tends to do better in big states, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/15/democratic-primary-and-size-of-state/">as shown here</a>. </p> <p>There have been nine closed caucus states, and Sanders has won seven of them, with a tie in one. There have been three open caucus contests, and Sanders has won in three of them. There have been 7 closed primary contests and Sanders has won in one of them, with a tie in one. There have been 13 open primaries, and Sanders has won three. So, he does better in caucus states, but tends to lose in primary states, and possibly least well in closed primary states, which is what New York has. </p> <p>Now, here is the interesting thing, recently pointed out by Rachel Maddow. Sanders, and the Sanders campaign, is not making any attempt at all to control expectations in New York. Clinton has a better claim to favorite daughter status. New York is relatively diverse, and Clinton does better in diverse states. Clinton tends to win closed primaries. The polls show Clinton ahead. My own projection, not based on polls, has Clinton winning. But Sanders keeps up with the "we will win here" mantra, which is not the advisable approach if you are not going to win. You can win and lose at the same time by setting up the expectation that you will lose by, say, 15% and then you go ahead and lose by only 9%. That's a win(ish) in the primary process. But Sanders is not doing that.</p> <p>Here's Maddow's thing:</p> <iframe src="http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_bdemocrats_160418" height="500" width="635" scrolling="no" border="no"></iframe><p> Sanders' evidence is that he tends to come from behind, and over perform. And in my own modeling, that has tended to happen. All those times I was right about the outcome of a contest and the great FiveThirtyEight was wrong, it was a Sanders over performance, pretty much. </p> <p>But, for all the reasons stated above, I don't expect this to happen in New York. If it does, that will be very significant, and we may have to rethink the whole primary process this year!</p> <p>Anyway, just for fun and because I thought you might find it interesting, I rand some numbers. I simply took the last several polls in several states, and recalculated the percentage for Clinton and Sanders such that the percents attributed add up to 100%, and then added to the top of the list the actual performance in the contest. From this I made a graph, with the moment of winning on the left side. If Sanders tends to jump up and win the contest, this will be seen by a line tracking (backwards) along below 50% then suddenly, for the actual voting, jump above 50%. </p> <p>I did not do this for all the contests because there simply isn't enough poling data. Indeed, Sanders tends to win in open and/or caucus states, and pollster don't even bother polling in those states because they are so crazy. And, he tends to win in small states, and pollsters tend to not poll in small states. Which, if you think about it, should give you pause in considering Sanders' claim. He does better than expected when the expectation is based on nearly zero or otherwise crappy data.</p> <p>Anyway, I non-systematically picked a bunch of states and made a bunch of graphs and shoved them all onto one graphic:</p> <p><a href="/files/gregladen/files/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2016-04-19-at-10.43.30-AM.png" rel="attachment wp-att-22392"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2016/04/Screen-Shot-2016-04-19-at-10.43.30-AM-610x790.png" alt="Screen Shot 2016-04-19 at 10.43.30 AM" width="610" height="790" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-22392" /></a></p> <p>Sanders did the Bernie Blast to the top in Minnesota, but we had almost no info in Minnesota. He seemed to do it in Michigan, but if you look at the polling over time, it was not utterly unexpected. He might have done it a little, but not enough to win, in Arizona, but note that this is the state that had all that voter repression. </p> <p>I indicated on each graph the nominal category of contest so you can gaze at these results and draw your own conclusions.</p> <p>As I've said numerous times, each contest is a test of a particular hypothesis or model about how the primary season is going. If Clinton wins New York and wins it by about 10-15%, the NY primary does not change the fact that she will win the race, but come in just under the required number of pledged delegates to lock without super delegates. If she does way better, that changes our expectations for the rest of the primary season.</p> <p>If, on the other hand, Sanders wins, that will be huge and require a major revision of our thinking. </p> <p>Polls close at 9:00 PM Eastern in New York. If urban and NYC districts are counted early, and upstate later, because they use clay pots and send the results in by pony or something, then we should see Clinton surge then Sanders slowly slog towards catching up (or not). </p> <p>Stay tuned. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Tue, 04/19/2016 - 05:08</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/election-2016" hreflang="en">Election 2016</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/bernie-sanders" hreflang="en">Bernie Sanders</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/democratic-primary" hreflang="en">Democratic Primary</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/hillary-clinton" hreflang="en">Hillary Clinton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/new-york-primary" hreflang="en">New York Primary</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470532" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461057673"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thank you, again.</p> <p>I see in the news that the mayor of New York City is asking why voter registrations were purged of about 118,000 voters in the past 6 months, but few of the new registrations have been added to the data bases. Is this, do you suppose, deliberate or a mistake?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470532&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LGlcLha4m9QztlA6FjREFO0XnYi9TeunB0LXz0p7udk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Desertphile (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470532">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470533" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461062499"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>There was a fairly large downswing in registered voters in about 10% of the state's counties, and probably a similar upswing in about 10%. That's normal. Voters are purged when they don't vote for a few years, move, etc. </p> <p>I'm not saying nothing wrong has happened here, but this may be a case of people suddenly taking note of a typical normal phenomenon.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470533&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KYSsudROx97h0_Ah0vuJjyJ1uvKm_i-TMdfwjTqmAcg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470533">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470534" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461073210"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>This is a closed primary in a state where you have to be registered in a political party by some time in October in order to participate.</p></blockquote> <p>This technically doesn't apply to newly registered voters (who can choose a party affiliation at the time of registration, and are eligible if they registered in the party by 25 March), but it does apply to previously registered voters, and may be a limiting factor for some of Sanders' potential voters. New York also has this worse than most states because they have a couple of minor parties that don't exist (at least not in any significant fashion) anywhere else--not merely a detail like Minnesota's DFL being the official name of the state Democratic party, but distinct parties with their own nomination process (in practice they tend to nominate the same candidates as one of the major parties). So somebody in the Workers' Party (I'm not sure I have the name exactly right) isn't eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, even though in state and local races this party almost always nominates the same candidate who wins the Democratic party nomination. I will speculate that this will trip up more potential Sanders voters than potential Clinton voters, but I have nothing to back up that intuition.</p> <p>Regarding voter purges: As Greg says, it's not necessarily nefarious. All states have some means of deleting people from the voter rolls if they don't actually vote in that precinct. But the process has been used for nefarious purposes elsewhere, most notoriously Florida in 2000. So it matters, at least in terms of optics, whether the purges followed a well-established procedure. Since I am not a New York resident, I have no idea how it works in New York. In New Hampshire, where I live, the purges happen every 10 years, so that (at least in my town--I don't know if this is staggered or uniform statewide) somebody who voted in the general election of 2010 and then moved out of state will remain on the voter rolls until 2021.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470534&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="NFgTISA4nHZU263gK0lRoNJWuKqrRQA3MSfCGnsFAMc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470534">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470535" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461080889"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Did you factor in the 27% of registered voters in NY who can't vote because it's a closed primary (if must be registered as either a D or R or you can't vote; they had to re-register back in October if they wanted to vote today)? And then there is the issue of registrations being mysteriously switched, as was the case in AZ, too. See the Democracy Now! story on these issues: <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/19/millions_of_new_yorkers_disenfranchised_from">http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/19/millions_of_new_yorkers_disenfran…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470535&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Y2bk-rezoNCCogxkE_vP6tefPWH0fRmi182QG-HSVpc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Gregg Kleiner (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470535">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470536" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461090136"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Early exit polls have Clinton winning 52-48</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470536&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0KPbjXMNsN07LtWlWdFgebcWvlNkwcey6gqRNN6Cyl4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470536">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <div class="indented"> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470537" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461090763"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><b><i>Early exit polls have Clinton winning 52-48</i></b></p> <p>Exit polls also showed Al Gore winning by a large margin.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470537&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qq1ONxRnZ8o7mJg9nHzgqBkeN7DfYffH8n9hsU8mCMo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Desertphile (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470537">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> <p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="/comment/1470536#comment-1470536" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span></p> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470539" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461092003"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/04/19/474896027/after-more-than-100-000-voters-dropped-in-brooklyn-city-officials-call-for-actio">http://www.npr.org/2016/04/19/474896027/after-more-than-100-000-voters-…</a></p> <p>One person saw his dead month on the voting list, though she died 6 years ago and has not voted in over a decade.</p> <p>Other voters could not enter the building because no one had the keys to unlock the doors.</p> <p>Other voters waited from 6:00AM to 9:00AM before the balloting machines were set up and ready to incorrectly record their ballots.</p> <p>In other news, a judge in Arizona is hearing arguments for why the election results should not be thrown out, and a re-vote taken</p> <p>Shit, it's like I'm back living in Central America.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470539&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZLO9muhZa7dY8BEdCRdaH835oy0KzhAqrt3bjGMiLSA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Desertphile (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470539">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> <p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="/comment/1470536#comment-1470536" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin O&#039;Neill (not verified)</span></p> </footer> </article> </div> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470538" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461091685"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>NYTimes shows Clinton ahead about 60-40 with just over 25% reporting. Bernie is doing well in rural and rust belt areas, Hillary is winning the city, Westchester, Putnam ... Exit polls show a sharply divided electorate.<br /> NYT has called it for Trump with over 64% at 27% reporting. Kasich 26% and Cruz 10%.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470538&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="k57gX98o_M25ph_5WWxsSTBraUtcOGlvo6gVkHNY2zg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Donal (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470538">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470540" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461093637"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Latest via Aussie ABC online : </p> <p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/ny-primaries-live-blog/7340956">http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/ny-primaries-live-blog/7340956</a></p> <p>Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both claimed victory.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470540&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bwnrsTrFvU7D1zX8tg478KFbb9wF_2_bKGftn1Dj3SE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">StevoR (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470540">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470541" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461093675"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Gregg, no "registratons" are being switched. </p> <p>It may well be true that a certain number of voters in New York are clueless as to how to vote and fucked up their chance to vote in this primary. I assume that applies evenly to both candidates, but perhaps you are suggesting that one candidate's supporters are more likely to mess this relatively simple thing up than the other? Which one?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470541&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Dsr1bT4wfbmyDmt0VcuEjPO28eDw42hLXgSwPu4usg8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470541">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <div class="indented"> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470544" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461095549"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The mayor claimed that entire city blocks in Brooklyn were purged: Republican Party members, independents, and Democrat Part members.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470544&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lzYLTxt0C7Z5i369R7tYkvYYNukA87WAsNfwDuZkL5U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Desertphile (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470544">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> <p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="/comment/1470541#comment-1470541" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></p> </footer> </article> </div> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470542" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461093745"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"One person saw his dead month on the voting list, though she died 6 years ago and has not voted in over a decade."</p> <p>You know the old expression. "When I die, burry me in New York so I can remain active in politics!"</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470542&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KNdzeqad7BkMIqubMjYssr0oPUzBfv1NSRI7HN9ESgo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470542">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470543" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461093969"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Eric, thanks, I put a link to your comment.</p> <p>Yes, I remember the days when most candidates were listed in either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and then ALSO in the "conservative" or the "liberal" party, and those were the first four columns in the voting booth, followed by socialists, etc. etc. </p> <p>That was for the general, not the primary.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470543&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ugco20GDE4Tmyf0mWWfLm2r8In1k0Q2d69dpwauuC-A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470543">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470545" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461095821"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>From the news blog linked in #9 : </p> <blockquote><p>Monique Ross 5 minutes ago<br /> ... Decision Desk HQ :</p> <p>Meanwhile, a little LOL from the Republican race...</p> <p>"In Westchester County, Ted Cruz is losing to Ben Carson."</p> <p>Dr Carson dropped out of the race more than a month ago.</p></blockquote> <p>Classic! </p> <p>Its great to see Cruz get a well deserved hammering and huge set back. I think he'd be even worse than Trump.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470545&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qmFO-lDwZTJBqAA9SP_1iTu6ViNnb_xyhDk2eb63VKM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">StevoR (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470545">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470546" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461114360"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>At this point I think one can take it for granted that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Even Common Dreams, which has been supporting wishful thinking rather than evidence-based analysis, seems to be reaching that conclusion, and today they started to pivot toward accepting Clinton's candidacy:</p> <p>“Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said that Clinton has become a much stronger candidate and the Democratic Party has benefited because of the campaign that Sanders has been running.<br /> 'Hillary Clinton continues to be made a stronger candidate thanks to Bernie Sanders engaging her in a race to the top on popular economic populism issues like debt-free college, expanding Social Security, a $15 minimum wage, and jailing Wall Street bankers who break the law,' Green said in a statement. 'The primary continues, but no matter who wins, the center of gravity in the Democratic Party has fundamentally shifted in an economic populist direction during this primary—and because of that, Democrats are better positioned to win in November.' ”<br /><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/19/theres-no-place-home-clinton-and-trump-declared-primary-winners-new-york">http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/19/theres-no-place-home-clinto…</a> </p> <p>Interestingly, while Sanders's platform and ideas have played a major role in shaping the race, most recently his statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which were echoed by Joe Biden, his late displays of petulance, pettiness, and innuendo may have alienated so many Democrats, that he himself will be marginalized in the general election campaign. It wouldn't surprise me if the Democrats instead rely on figures like Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard to mobilize the less rational Sanders supporters. The rational ones already know how crucial the coming election is.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470546&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zQZaehIYnDh7qt_WiP6hh_a3b5yf5e53Mbibs2prdB4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470546">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470547" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461118474"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The similarity between Cruz and Joe McCarthy hit me during the Data or Dogma climate hearing. Cruz's lying is far more calculated than Trump's, and he's more sinister in his use of innuendo. He seems to be filled with conceit and totally without empathy. At the same time, Cruz's political positions are in greater agreement with those of the Republican oligarchs, and would have a far greater chance of being converted into policy. </p> <p>The beauty of the Trump candidacy is that's it's a logical consequence of the Koch network's efforts to organize what to a great degree is well-founded resentment, and exploit it in ways that benefit them. In this case, the Kochs weren't able to control the resentment they aroused, and it's taken turns that are inimical to their interests. They don't want Trump, Cruz has no way to a legitimate victory, and voters in state after state have rejected Kasich. The Republican Party is a mess, and it's hard to see how it can get out of it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470547&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9R-svEU98vUAd2OsOKoiNPDeKXanbOX1IoATSc51U_o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 19 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470547">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470548" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461128444"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>All Republicans are proposing tax cuts that would overwhelmingly benefit the rich. In Kansas, the center of the Koch universe, this policy is having unexpected repercussions:</p> <p>"Now, as each new month brings another budget gap to be filled, even Brownback's former champions in the state legislature are losing their faith. Per the Associated Press:</p> <p> <i>Now many of the same Republicans who helped pass Brownback's plan are in open revolt, refusing to help the governor cut spending so he can avoid rolling back any of his signature tax measures. If Brownback won't reconsider any of the tax cuts, they say, he will have to figure out for himself how to balance the budget in the face of disappointing revenue.</i></p> <p> "Let him own it," Republican Rep. Mark Hutton said. "It's his policy that put us there."</p> <p>In the abstract, low taxes and small government sound pretty good to Kansas voters. But when the rubber meets the pot-hole-filled road, people would rather have a functioning public-school system than more opulent McMansions. According to the AP, Republican legislators are worried about signing on to more spending cuts in an election year, because their very conservative constituents seem to hate spending cuts (in March, Brownback enjoyed a 21 percent approval rating in the state, four points behind Barack Obama). Thus, Republican dissidents are demanding tax hikes..."<br /><a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/kansas-republicans-are-sick-of-small-government.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/kansas-republicans-are-sic…</a></p> <p>Of course, if Republican tax cuts can be shown not to work, the party's candidates can appeal to the fantasies of hitherto ignored voter groups: </p> <p>"America has always been best when she is lying down with her back on the mat."<br /><a href="http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/04/ted-cruz-said-a-creepy-thing-in-primary-speech.html">http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/04/ted-cruz-said-a-creepy-thing-in-primary…</a></p> <p>Legitimate rape?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470548&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1V4_0qYo8TQeCKlGsvNvuTx_jnGTlT70Qk5uhxsz8po"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470548">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470549" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461130071"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"There is, to say the least, a certain amount of tension between two of the arguments the Bernie Sanders campaign made today.</p> <p>First, Sanders blasted New York's primary for being closed to independents. 'Today, 3 million people in the state of New York who are independents have lost their right to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary,' Bernie Sanders said. 'That’s wrong.'</p> <p>But later that same night, Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, went on MSNBC and said that the campaign's plan is to win the election by persuading superdelegates to dump Hillary Clinton...</p> <p>But what turns this into an unusually difficult argument for Sanders is that, early in the race, Sanders's supporters feared this is how Clinton would steal the election, and so they mobilized their supporters to demand that the superdelegates abide by the will of the voters. Even today, some Sanders supporters (wrongly) think Clinton's lead is the unfair result of superdelegates ignoring the voters and backing her campaign.</p> <p>Theres nothing new about seemingly principled arguments about process covering opportunistic jockeying for candidate advantage. But imagine if it was Sanders who was leading in pledged delegates and Clinton who was suggesting New York's primary results weren't legitimate and her campaign would use superdelegates to win even if they lost the primaries. Sanders's voters would be furious, and rightly so."<br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/19/11465392/bernie-sanders-superdelegates">http://www.vox.com/2016/4/19/11465392/bernie-sanders-superdelegates</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470549&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="x_DXv_C0xhsqJvGlZPiBiP-NrlqeYMBr6XwC8yynQxU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470549">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470550" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461131169"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics,</p> <p>As I have pointed out many times, complaining about closed primaries is in itself "wrong". </p> <p>Nothing prevented Sanders from running as an independent, and there is no legal or constitutional requirement that a political party allow any voting at all in their selection process.</p> <p>This is a specious argument to fire up low-information voters.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470550&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JuiuuTxx3q2m2Ldpi6qxeWCas39mPOmkH-SpVJd5ITA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470550">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470551" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461143360"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sanders is not running as an independent for the same reason that Paul Ryan won't follow his desire and attempt to gain the Republican nomination.</p> <p>Both of them know that doing so will only split the party and hand the election to "the other side".</p> <p>it's specious argument to attempt to make an argument look specious.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470551&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pCIemI78awfNnOE7lvWAwvZexJmeZisRncb7kgHNvfU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470551">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470552" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461149929"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>zebra - It is true that Sanders appeals to a lot of people who, because of their youth or economic status, haven't been active political participants so won't always get the right hoops jumped through on time. The contemptuous attitude of dismissing those people as "low-information voters" - who, it is hinted, don't really deserve to vote - is one of the things I loathe about Hillary-style moderate-Republican elitism. ("Superpredators who must be brought to heel", anyone?) Nonetheless, it appears that she will be the nominee, and she can't win a general election with only the votes of "high-information voters", so it's time for her partisans to start pretending they care about the lower classes.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470552&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nhTWyfmMPSgmmWsaZsKiRCpiNjw3AgGbA6TuvqHYT-s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">jane (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470552">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="31" id="comment-1470553" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461152843"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jane, I think some of the reaction to the "low-information voters" is different than you are characterizing. In all the political events I've been to over the last month (about six or seven) people were asked if this was their first time or if they were new, and large numbers of individuals raised their hands, and promptly received applause and cheers. Democrats in general, regardless of their preference for one candidate or another, are very happy to have all this new interest. </p> <p>Meanwhile, in social media, there is a flood of stupid crap, conspiracy theory, context-free blathering, ahistorical yammering, and foundationless accusation. I tend to see more of that coming from Sanders supporters than Hillary supporters, but there is plenty coming from Hillary supporters as well about Sanders. If you scratch the surface, much of this is coming from noobs who have drunk some Kook Aid or simply don't know what they are talking about. Some comes from people who should know better. My sense is that the noob-originated BS tends to be more Berrnie-alligned, where the malicious should-know-better stuff comes from Hillar-alligned folks. </p> <p>Either way, that is something to be legitimately annoyed about. </p> <p>And, worried. It is really troubling to see such a low level of understanding of so much of the electorate. Not a surprise, but usually not so apparent and thus in the background.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470553&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="r4hQiSlFxai9OLqHgq242xeCQNfpqpxVScVq1LCvWbU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470553">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/gregladen"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/gregladen" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/HumanEvolutionIcon350-120x120.jpg?itok=Tg7drSR8" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user gregladen" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470554" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461153439"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Quite a lot of "background" stuff is being brought out into the light of day in this election cycle...</p> <p>Quite a lot.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470554&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="aJerOCTwAUrXQRmTIZ-TmjW3qDjkM0UY92kgVfppibk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470554">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470555" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461154364"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As far as I can tell, no portion of the American political spectrum is well-informed these days, nor hesitates to spout off without informing themselves first. This is how democracies die.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470555&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZXYNMQCt8RDvLz6ZY_6BbIeBixK3W9-uAOXqswzxOQ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">jane (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470555">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470556" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461155136"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>...by turning into "dumb-ocracies" perhaps?</p> <p>It seems that there's at least one major political party that actually prefers it that way.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470556&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Czhi-fftRlqW4BckPQmbGJsn6IFiDkFtPC-r5d5P0rk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470556">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470557" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461159909"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Greg #22,</p> <p>The business about open primaries is <i>wrong</i> however much one would like to not disparage the ignorance of a particular group.</p> <p>I actually don't think the Bernie people commenting in the media are being disingenuous or trying to score rhetorical points-- I think they really, really, Just. Don't. Get. It. . And that's the problem.</p> <p>Maybe it's all the years of listening to people who JDGI, with respect to basic physics and climate, but I have lost patience with such lazy nonsense. If you want to play, learn the rules. And I'm someone who has taught some seriously unprepared college students, and been complimented on how patient and understanding I am. That zebra is fast disappearing. I guess I'm getting more like Bernie, much as I try to fight it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470557&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pX91HxxW7lVUa2YI3g3kCPVV5rDV91Q4kRpCe_KyODI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470557">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470558" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461160948"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#19</p> <p>If you're under the impression that I've complained about closed primaries, you're mistaken. The primaries are the way in which the parties select not only their candidates, but also their leaders. In Denmark it would be unthinkable for persons to help choose the leader of a party they don't belong to, and I don't think that makes any sense in the U.S. either. When Americans register as independents they've made a choice, and choices have consequences. In this case the choice can (and in my opinion should) mean that they don't have the same rights as persons who have chosen to align themselves with a particular party. It also means that independents have as much right to complain as Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc. do because they can't choose a pope.</p> <p>While selecting candidates through voting may not be a requirement, it does give a certain democratic legitimacy that smoke filled rooms don't provide, and the primary race can change the political discourse. Sanders has focused on some extremely important issues, and some of his criticisms of Clinton are uncomfortably valid.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470558&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RZBs9FP-2dt0vHLjmR4t6NpBmnRRAE9gKUUZ2Erj3YI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470558">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470559" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461163311"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#19</p> <p>To further elaborate: #18 wasn't about closed primaries. It was about the Sanders campaign's hypocrisy and double standards.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470559&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qswYLcy-xAUah4CeD2-U6Han_xwCaet95DmnaeCMdWU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470559">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470560" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461169549"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-unpopularity-contest-for-the-ages/2016/04/19/7e1d25a2-0663-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-unpopularity-contest-for-the…</a></p> <p>“This is unprecedented,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “It will be the first time in the history of polling that we’ll have both major party candidates disliked by a majority of the American people going into the election.”</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470560&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tDNx6oeC5ZcOjejhXdjQW0-psW27h8sUjZtqMIMF7u0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Donal (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470560">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470561" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461173433"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>"This is how democracies die."</i></p> <p>Perhaps. Or:<br /><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/19/1517351/-Democracy-It-isn-t-what-you-think">http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/19/1517351/-Democracy-It-isn-t-w…</a></p> <p>My personal observation is that a lot of politics is negotiating postures. </p> <p>Famously, game of choice:<br /> Obama -&gt; poker player<br /> McCain -&gt; craps player</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470561&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vHqxueeFFpiGIZXCMOsD721rsYX_1Kr9u5XnrZBzQi0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Obstreperous Applesauce">Obstreperous A… (not verified)</span> on 20 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470561">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470562" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461212330"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>cosmicomics 27, 28,</p> <p>No, I understood exactly what you said.</p> <p>When Sanders complained about the closed primary, he was being, you know, dishonest, to motivate the ignorant. He obviously knows better.</p> <p>I'm remarking on the number of people I see commenting in various venues who <i>are</i> actually ignorant, and can't take a minute to think it through. Really, it isn't like climate change, where you have to learn a little about physics and statistics to see the fallacies. As you nicely describe in #27, it's pretty obvious.</p> <p>But with respect to your latter paragraph, the primaries are not about legitimacy--- they are in effect auditions. Without the long, grueling, and complicated process, how would anyone know (including the smoke-filled-room people) which potential candidate is most likely to be a winner in the general election?</p> <p>This is a particularly irksome issue for me, when the Sanders campaign people (the professionals) compare this to 2008. I was an early Obama supporter, I followed Obama closely, and <i>Sanders is no Obama.</i> Of course, these guys want to keep it going so they can continue to get paid.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470562&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zL8NNFSpnUuZFZshIaW95V026fEGvwnYT9b1RhJwAnI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">zebra (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470562">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470563" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461224335"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>A fun piece from FAIR:<br /><b>10 Laziest Takes of Election Season 2016</b><br /><a href="http://fair.org/home/10-laziest-takes-of-election-season-2016/">http://fair.org/home/10-laziest-takes-of-election-season-2016/</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470563&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="z0CAYaQR-COOCaygyUMdyIsN2KeashchIZe1NPPgBbM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Obstreperous Applesauce">Obstreperous A… (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470563">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470564" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461227458"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Also famously game of choice:<br /> Putin -&gt; chess player</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470564&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="q6eVdlPEwdjU8I1CYoSVpqicIpF252LmrF21o6ZB1_Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">jane (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470564">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470565" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461228449"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#31</p> <p>It's not either or. Yes, the primaries are an audition, but they also provide the process with "will of the people" democratic legitimacy. There was a time when primaries didn't exist. The purpose of primaries was to ensure a more democratic process.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470565&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bjBRUkyjhV-rwd5Db2rS4EF0diZ9zy8Y8J_jek7bdMU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cosmicomics (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470565">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470566" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461228940"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I can see how chess would appeal to an autocrat.</p> <p>Backgammon, OTOH, is a race game that balances strategy with chance, but I don't know of any politicians for whom it's the game of choice. Maybe it's one for the campaign managers...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470566&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PdLuIgN1ByAtGQPisq9alr6WxWvR2T6qXD08DQU7ZFM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Obstreperous Applesauce">Obstreperous A… (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470566">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470567" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461229684"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Also famously game of choice:<br /> 2016 GOP -&gt; Russian Roulette</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470567&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_si-42RVUPM-WKepfc_og4wvjIZEOk7aBccjncIIAVs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Brainstorms (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470567">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470568" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461242039"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I thought the 2016 GOP was a celebrity roast, or maybe, Whose Line Is It, Anyway?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470568&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="D7ynuawiorBSVHfvlsTNUQcoDcrTgC5Fn-AYN-8RuN8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Donal (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470568">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <div class="indented"> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470569" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461243485"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><b><i>I thought the 2016 GOP was a celebrity roast, or maybe, Whose Line Is It, Anyway?</i></b></p> <p>Given the talk about the tiny orange penis and women spewing bloody from their "whatevers," it's more like a Austin Powers' movie.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470569&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MyGYAQUVksMXGl3Qy8DBlNH5xtnYsARiXnG6-kUreoA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Desertphile (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470569">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> <p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="/comment/1470568#comment-1470568" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Donal (not verified)</span></p> </footer> </article> </div> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1470570" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1461243752"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Was Prince killed by the chemtrails he and Haggard spoke out against?" -- Kit Daniels - April 21, 2016</p> <p>Thus we see why some people vote for Trump.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1470570&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WRMz8f0ex7RP_Nii30eCea1ds6V_Ja05IAo_k56CrEs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Desertphile (not verified)</span> on 21 Apr 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/5575/feed#comment-1470570">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2016/04/19/who-won-the-new-york-democratic-primary-and-why%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:08:46 +0000 gregladen 33911 at https://scienceblogs.com