2015-2016 Democratic Primary Season - Bernie Math

[Abe Sargent]

I donated to Sanders Campaign last week. I'm a Kasich guy, and have been since he declared and the first deabte. He's the most ready to run, has the best resume, and frankly, is more electable than these other "electable" folks out there. But I love teh Sanders vibe.

[ISiddiqui]

One interesting thing I heard rattled off in a string of demographic losses for Hilary tonight. The ONE constituency where she broke even (according to WSB radio talking heads) was ... Democrats. (Presumably they meant registered dems or equivalent vs whatever other options there are for voting in the primary in NH)

If that's actually accurate, what an enormous flaw in the primary system.
(Georgia has the same issue, it's an open primary state as well)

We are in full agreement. I never liked open primaries. The party members should determine who is the party representative.

[CraigSca]

So basically the Democratic elite just needs to dig up some disingenuous dirt on Sanders in order for a Clinton comeback.

I saw a little of this yesterday - read a story where a Democratic PAC was instrumental in the machinations in the background to get Sanders either elected or re-elected in 2006 (?).

I would think this wouldn't be too hard. Really, is it even possible to get as far a being a potential presidential nominee without taking some money somewhere from a PAC, lobby group, etc.?

[JPhillips]

We are in full agreement. I never liked open primaries. The party members should determine who is the party representative.

Isn't it generally against the interests of the party to turn away voters? There's no hint Sanders was driven by a wave of GOP ratfuckers. He pulled in a lot of new voters and the party should look to finding a way to keep them on the D side in November.

[Ben E Lou]

(Georgia has the same issue, it's an open primary state as well)Yup. The one I remember the most was the 2002 Democratic Primary, where Cynthia McKinney got kicked to the curb by large number of crossover voters. I just did a quick check: only 6,000 people voted in the R primary that year, compared to 29,000 in the previous R primary. McKinney lost by a little under 20,000 votes, and it is widely thought that the margin of victory was provided by people who normally voted in Republican primaries.

I suppose the counterpoint to Jon/Imran would be this: if your politics are in a strong minority in your district, realistically you have *no* voice in the general election. Being able to cross over does give you the chance to have *some* say in who represents you--something you would not have had otherwise.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There was a fairly similar poll in Iowa that went pretty much the same way. I think it was something like 25% of Dems saying "honesty and integrity" most important, and they broke maybe 85-15 Sanders. Checking now..:

I think the women voter breakdown was far more telling. Amongst women 18-29, Sanders beat Hillary by 59 POINTS! Sanders overall won the women vote 55-44. That's a huge problem for her in a voter block that swung her way last time she ran for the nomination.

[NobodyHere]

Looks like a lot of women just reserved their place in hell.

[Kodos]

Looks like a lot of women just reserved their place in hell.

:confused:

[cuervo72]

The Albright comments.

[miked]

According to the CNN tracker, though Sanders completely trounced Hillary, she won the delegate count? WTF is going on with these weird primaries? Does that include these superdelegates who are apparently paid before the primaries?

[cuervo72]

Yes, superdelegates.

[Ben E Lou]

According to the CNN tracker, though Sanders completely trounced Hillary, she won the delegate count? WTF is going on with these weird primaries? Does that include these superdelegates who are apparently paid before the primaries?AP has it 13 to 9 Sanders. Must be 6 superdelegates.

[digamma]

NH has 24 pledged delegates (delegates who vote according to last night's vote). 22 of those have been allocated thus far, 13 to Sanders, 9 to Clinton. The last two are still not allocated. It's fair to assume Sanders will get at least one, if not both.

NH has 8 Superdelegates. 6 of these have declared for HRC. As noted, they are free to switch up until the convention.

So, of NH's 32 total delegates, HRC has 15 right now. Sanders has 13. Four (two pledged and two supers) are still in play.

[digamma]

Dola...

There are a total of 712 Democratic superdelegates. This represents about 15% of the delegate count. Right now HRC leads the superdelegate count of those who have publicly pledged support approximately 357-14 (you see slightly varied counts at different places).

[JPhillips]

If the convention were to get down to superdelegates overruling the voters, the superdelegates will switch. There's no point in nominating someone that would so fracture the party that the general would be a foregone conclusion. The superdelegates are the most engaged political folks in the party. Most of them aren't going to risk throwing their power and influence away.

That's basically what was happening with Obama, although he did eventually have a strong enough lead that it didn't matter.

[lighthousekeeper]

There's no point in nominating someone that would so fracture the party that the general would be a foregone conclusion. The superdelegates are the most engaged political folks in the party. Most of them aren't going to risk throwing their power and influence away.

Counterpoint: there's no point in an establishment Democrat who's been entrenched in the party long enough to become a superdelegate to ever throw their vote to a Socialist...someone who's not even a registered Democrat.

[NobodyHere]

The Albright comments.

Yup

Madeleine Albright's Words Backfire With Hillary Loss | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/09/lots-of-women-will-be-going-to-hell-now-according-to-clinton-supporter-madeleine-albright/)

[Kodos]

The Albright comments.

Ahh. Somehow I had missed that story.

[Ben E Lou]

NYT exit poll.
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/12687960_1677362685875171_275811421316032413_n.jpg?oh=9f7cc4f218fe8ace82c5386016279264&oe=5729D640

[Kodos]

So old, well-off people love Hillary.

[tarcone]

So old, well-off people love Hillary.

Sounds Republican, doesn't it?

[Ben E Lou]

So old, well-off people love Hillary.At least in New Hampshire, yes. Sanders still his to deal with the minority factor soon, though--especially the black voters in the South. That will be interesting to see.

[AENeuman]

NYT exit poll.
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/12687960_1677362685875171_275811421316032413_n.jpg?oh=9f7cc4f218fe8ace82c5386016279264&oe=5729D640

Every year I have my government class take the political compass test. Every year they end up in the same spot, socially and economically progressive. Unlike the past few elections there is actually a candidate in their quadrant, Sanders. Most of the time it's their stance and on the opposite side, Obama, Bush, et al.

So it makes sense the youth are into Bernie. He can appeal to expectations rather than experiences. Plus.. he uhmm... sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake! :D

[ISiddiqui]

It's got to be somewhat bad news for Sanders though that the 18-29 age range only made up 19%. In NH, he was going to get the older voters as well (aside from the really old ones), but that wasn't the case in Iowa (Sanders won 18-29 and 30-44, but lost 45-64 and 64+) and it won't be the case in the rest of the country.

[lighthousekeeper]

At least in New Hampshire, yes. Sanders still his to deal with the minority factor soon, though--especially the black voters in the South. That will be interesting to see.

Not really interesting. Clinton already has a 394-42 delegate lead and will absolutely crush it in the south. There is absolutely no contest. We just want to pretend that there is because that is more interesting.

[Solecismic]

I'm no longer certain this is the case, because Hillary is making a lot of mistakes lately. Plus, she still has to explain how emails made it from the state department's top-secret computer network to her home server without their security markings. While it seems certain Obama will protect her from prosecution, the fallout could be significant.

For some reason, she got it into her head that she had to out-left Sanders. So she's repudiating her husband's presidency - exactly the accomplishments that made independents like him. And now he's on the campaign trail with her. That's confusing.

Meanwhile, free stuff for everyone. Just add it to the tab.

No one really believes she's that far to the left. So young people aren't just embracing Sanders and the free stuff, they're to a point where they actually dislike Hillary because they know she was someone else before the campaign started. It's not just the email server she's lying about.

Sanders has tapped into a very real problem, however. College is more expensive than it was in the past. When my mom went to Cornell, she paid for most of it with a part-time job in the cafeteria. My dad's tuition at Yale was paid for under the GI Bill. Costs increased, and by the time I was a student I had to cobble together a couple of jobs and go in-state. But I got through without debt.

Could that work today? Forget it. Unless you're on scholarship, you're going to be deeply in debt after college. And if you don't have a useful major, you're going to have trouble finding a job anyway.

I completely disagree with Sanders' solution, but this is a problem that anyone under 30 can see a lot more clearly than the rest of us can. If you ask college professors, they'll blame administrative bloat and 100 other things. I think we need university reform just as badly as we need health care reform.

[QuikSand]

So old, well-off people love Hillary.

Well, let's not get too wrapped up in the powerful blue/white shading imagery there. Sanders won this whole state BIG with lots of inherent advantages...so the fact that he won most of the age/economic subgroups isn't itself a shock.

Another way to look at that breakdown is to realize that in the "middle" income group from $100-200K, Clinton OUTPERFORMED her statewide numbers (even while losing). Less interestingly, she did so with the second-oldest group as well.

He is unsurprisingly killing her with the young, and there are other factors we know are driving the race... but that $100-200K band is a pretty important demographic. And that's before you introduce the new (to New Hampshire) concept of "people of color."

[JPhillips]

Plus, she still has to explain how emails made it from the state department's top-secret computer network to her home server without their security markings.

If that's true, it's new information. Nothing has been released confirming the emails were top-secret at the time of initial transmission.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not really interesting. Clinton already has a 394-42 delegate lead and will absolutely crush it in the south. There is absolutely no contest. We just want to pretend that there is because that is more interesting.

Pretty much this IMO.

She'll absolutely dominate the SEC primaries ... but it returns to interesting, at least on paper, since she appears to be in some trouble for the mid-March round.

There was some reference last night I caught, about her strategy basically being to build an insurmountable lead & render a lot of stuff moot. That still looks to me to be the most likely outcome by far.

I mean, last night's hoo-ha was only a +4 delegates to Sanders. For all the sound & fury, the significance ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Unless you're on scholarship, you're going to be deeply in debt after college.

But, being deeply in the middle of this process right now ourselves, how many people that are going to make it to a degree aren't on at least some degree of scholarship.

I mean, the "list price" for college is absurd. But who the hell is paying list price? I just had this discussion last weekend with a couple of parents & a veteran educator, the standard opening offer these days is equal to roughly half at even most private colleges. That's the typical day one with admission acceptance number that is typical. Granted, rarified air set of students & all that jazz, but those are the kids that are getting into School X. Those are the kids that the school is definitely showing an indication that they want.

The leap from 50 percent (via scholarships and/or various cost waivers) to 60 or 70 percent isn't really that tough either. It's the next level above "the average freshman enrollee" but it's doable for many of those first round kids. Now the final portion, yeah, we're finding that to be where it gets a lot tougher. And the remainder isn't insubstantial, by any means ... but it's still a long way from MSRP too.

I'm probably as inclined toward the "name" school phenomenon as anyone but, realistically, if you aren't getting that sort of offer right off the bat then you may be reaching a tier above your grasp for school choice. To me any offer less than that is a strong sign that you might need to expand your horizons in terms of where to go.

[wustin]

I'm no longer certain this is the case, because Hillary is making a lot of mistakes lately. Plus, she still has to explain how emails made it from the state department's top-secret computer network to her home server without their security markings. While it seems certain Obama will protect her from prosecution, the fallout could be significant.

For some reason, she got it into her head that she had to out-left Sanders. So she's repudiating her husband's presidency - exactly the accomplishments that made independents like him. And now he's on the campaign trail with her. That's confusing.

Meanwhile, free stuff for everyone. Just add it to the tab.

No one really believes she's that far to the left. So young people aren't just embracing Sanders and the free stuff, they're to a point where they actually dislike Hillary because they know she was someone else before the campaign started. It's not just the email server she's lying about.

Sanders has tapped into a very real problem, however. College is more expensive than it was in the past. When my mom went to Cornell, she paid for most of it with a part-time job in the cafeteria. My dad's tuition at Yale was paid for under the GI Bill. Costs increased, and by the time I was a student I had to cobble together a couple of jobs and go in-state. But I got through without debt.

Could that work today? Forget it. Unless you're on scholarship, you're going to be deeply in debt after college. And if you don't have a useful major, you're going to have trouble finding a job anyway.

I completely disagree with Sanders' solution, but this is a problem that anyone under 30 can see a lot more clearly than the rest of us can. If you ask college professors, they'll blame administrative bloat and 100 other things. I think we need university reform just as badly as we need health care reform.

There's always vocational jobs. Or going to a community college on a university-transfer pathway.

[Solecismic]

There's always vocational jobs. Or going to a community college on a university-transfer pathway.

That's how European countries with "free" tuition handle this problem. But in the US, people don't accept that solution. Kids would rather be warehoused in majors that don't even qualify them for McDonald's than go to vocational school. The diploma has become more important than the future.

[JPhillips]

But, being deeply in the middle of this process right now ourselves, how many people that are going to make it to a degree aren't on at least some degree of scholarship.

I mean, the "list price" for college is absurd. But who the hell is paying list price? I just had this discussion last weekend with a couple of parents & a veteran educator, the standard opening offer these days is equal to roughly half at even most private colleges. That's the typical day one with admission acceptance number that is typical. Granted, rarified air set of students & all that jazz, but those are the kids that are getting into School X. Those are the kids that the school is definitely showing an indication that they want.

The leap from 50 percent (via scholarships and/or various cost waivers) to 60 or 70 percent isn't really that tough either. It's the next level above "the average freshman enrollee" but it's doable for many of those first round kids. Now the final portion, yeah, we're finding that to be where it gets a lot tougher. And the remainder isn't insubstantial, by any means ... but it's still a long way from MSRP too.

I'm probably as inclined toward the "name" school phenomenon as anyone but, realistically, if you aren't getting that sort of offer right off the bat then you may be reaching a tier above your grasp for school choice. To me any offer less than that is a strong sign that you might need to expand your horizons in terms of where to go.

Average discount rates are in the mid-fourties for a lot of schools. We were at 44 the last I heard. That's a big problem, because there isn't much room left to discount.

[JPhillips]

That's how European countries with "free" tuition handle this problem. But in the US, people don't accept that solution. Kids would rather be warehoused in majors that don't even qualify them for McDonald's than go to vocational school. The diploma has become more important than the future.

Don't blame the students. A lot of them would be fine with vocational or two year degrees if they opened doors the way a four year degree does. They aren't stupid, they understand that the jobs they can get without a four year degree are dwindling every year. Even if that vocational degree works today, when they're unemployed later they won't have options. Many employers use the four year degree as a filter, and equate a vocational degree with a HS diploma.

[heybrad]

There's always vocational jobs. Or going to a community college on a university-transfer pathway.
Even community college is now somewhat ridiculous. I mean, I don't know what your definition of cheap is but if I were to go to the same community college I did years ago it would now cost in the range of 15-20K (Long Beach City College, CA) when you include the various fees. My daughter did JC for one semester just because she planned to leave on a mission and that one semester was around $3500 (that's in Virginia). If that's now the affordable option its pretty crappy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Many employers use the four year degree as a filter, and equate a vocational degree with a HS diploma.

I'd go so far as to make the argument that the 4 year degree is awfully damned close to what a HS diploma used to be.

Says much about how devalued a HS diploma has become.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Average discount rates are in the mid-fourties for a lot of schools. We were at 44 the last I heard. That's a big problem, because there isn't much room left to discount.

Smells about right to my sniff test, there's enough that are far below that 50% mark for me to imagine the average being driven down in that range.

[wustin]

Even community college is now somewhat ridiculous. I mean, I don't know what your definition of cheap is but if I were to go to the same community college I did years ago it would now cost in the range of 15-20K (Long Beach City College, CA) when you include the various fees. My daughter did JC for one semester just because she planned to leave on a mission and that one semester was around $3500 (that's in Virginia). If that's now the affordable option its pretty crappy.

~$2600 for two semesters, I live in the RDU area of North Carolina. I know some people on this board live in Greensboro. I grew up there, tuition for GTCC is around $2000 for two semesters and the institution gives out merit/need based grant depending on the applicant.

This is all of course not considering living expenses (if any), cost of books, transportation, and assuming you don't qualify for pell grants.

[Dutch]

We all have to pay in some way. I got a degree for "free" from the military by going to night-school (thank you greater University of Maryland school system) and still have about $100k in GI Bill (scholarship) funds waiting for me (or my daughter). But I had to give the government about 7 years to accomplish that.

Is that better or worse than not joining the military and just going to school and then getting a great paying job at ~24 and paying off $80k in debt? I think if we equate time/effort to money, it breaks even.

[cuervo72]

Well, that idea sure worked.

[Warhammer]

There's always vocational jobs. Or going to a community college on a university-transfer pathway.

There are several issues here:

1). Many kids do not want to go into the labor sector. The easiest way until recently to earn six figures was to become a welder, and move to the Bakken Shale and you could write your own paycheck. However, the ratio of men to women was something like 20:1, and there is not much to do out there.

2). There are not a ton of jobs for vocational skills. Many of these jobs left the country. On top of that, many of the ones still here require a 4 year degree for some reason (I blame lazy HR people).

3). This ties back to #1, but many parents do not want their children in a blue collar job. They push their kids towards college rather than to a trade. For instance, in my industry there is a shortage of plant operators. Who tells their kids about all the great opportunities in waste water?

[SackAttack]

I mean, last night's hoo-ha was only a +4 delegates to Sanders. For all the sound & fury, the significance ...

Change the names, and you could have plucked this from almost any Democratic primary from 2008. For all that Clinton was winning contests, she wasn't moving the needle on pledged delegates.

[ISiddiqui]

Some fairly big news, the Congressional Black Caucus is formally endorsing Hillary Clinton today:

Congressional Black Caucus to formally endorse Clinton on Thursday - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/10/congressional-black-caucus-to-formally-endorse-clinton-on-thursday/?postshare=3761455203853138&tid=ss_fb-bottom)

Apparently 90% of the 20 member CBC board voted to endorse Clinton, none voted for Bernie (the other 10% abstained)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some fairly big news, the Congressional Black Caucus is formally endorsing Hillary Clinton today:

Congressional Black Caucus to formally endorse Clinton on Thursday - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/10/congressional-black-caucus-to-formally-endorse-clinton-on-thursday/?postshare=3761455203853138&tid=ss_fb-bottom)

Apparently 90% of the 20 member CBC board voted to endorse Clinton, none voted for Bernie (the other 10% abstained)

Is this really big news? Bill Clinton is jokingly referred to as the first black president for a reason.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes. Sanders has been trying really hard this week to burnish his African-American credentials - meeting with Al Sharpton, getting some black intellectuals saying they've vote for him, or against Clinton (Ta-Nehisi Coates and Michelle Alexander) - and this endorsement kind of kicks that down.

[digamma]

It's really only significant because of 2008 when HRC had a lot of CBC support early but they faded to Obama. Sort of a making amends type deal.

[larrymcg421]

It's important because...

Arkansas: Clinton 57, Sanders 25
Michigan: Clinton 57, Sanders 28
North Carolina: Clinton 55, Sanders 29
New York: Clinton 55, Sanders 34

Sanders has to turn these results around and the only way to do that is if the IA and NH performance helps make him more credible to minority voters.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yes. Sanders has been trying really hard this week to burnish his African-American credentials - meeting with Al Sharpton, getting some black intellectuals saying they've vote for him, or against Clinton (Ta-Nehisi Coates and Michelle Alexander) - and this endorsement kind of kicks that down.

He's dumber than I thought if he thought he would pull the AA vote from the Clintons.

[cuervo72]

Tough to go against the presumptive nominee at this point, especially one that is thought to hold grudges.

[ISiddiqui]

He's dumber than I thought if he thought he would pull the AA vote from the Clintons.

It's his only way to win, though. He has to try, or else he's completely toast.

[JonInMiddleGA]

he's completely toast.

Fixed that for you.

He's not turning that ship around in the Time left before March primaries

[larrymcg421]

Wait, so he never met with John Lewis? Did he meet with any members of the CBC?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wait, so he never met with John Lewis? Did he meet with any members of the CBC?

He tried. Only 6 showed up.


Bernie Sanders Meets With The Congressional Black Caucus — And Mostly Talks Policy - BuzzFeed News (http://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/bernie-sanders-meets-with-the-cbc-and-mostly-talks-policy#.wqJD685gE)

[ISiddiqui]

Fixed that for you.

He's not turning that ship around in the Time left before March primaries

I agree... but some still hold onto... something, I guess.

[Ben E Lou]

Wait, so he never met with John Lewis? Did he meet with any members of the CBC?Let's not pretend that Lewis and the CBC aren't part of "The Establishment," now. It seems pretty safe to assume that the Clinton machine is preventing any meaningful dialogue there.

[larrymcg421]

Let's not pretend that Lewis and the CBC aren't part of "The Establishment," now. It seems pretty safe to assume that the Clinton machine is preventing any meaningful dialogue there.

Sure, but just like Romney met with the NAACP, you still make the attempt. And the fact that he apparently hadn't already built up a good relationship with the CBC before even running for President kind of explains the demographic problems he's facing right now.

[Ben E Lou]

Sure, but just like Romney met with the NAACP, you still make the attempt. And the fact that he apparently hadn't already built up a good relationship with the CBC before even running for President kind of explains the demographic problems he's facing right now.My take is that the NAACP and the CBC are two very different things, at least when it comes to the reach/influence of the Clinton machine. I think I recall that Sanders showed up at an NAACP event in the fall or winter, and I know that Ben Jealous (former NAACP president) endorsed Sanders a week or so ago.

[chesapeake]

Let's not pretend that Lewis and the CBC aren't part of "The Establishment," now. It seems pretty safe to assume that the Clinton machine is preventing any meaningful dialogue there.

As elected officials, they are pretty much all part of the establishment by definition. And, every member is a superdelegate, too. Assuming that some members that were on the fence are taking this opportunity to announce their own individual endorsements, HRC is also adding to her lead in delegates.

[NobodyHere]

Some fairly big news, the Congressional Black Caucus is formally endorsing Hillary Clinton today:

Congressional Black Caucus to formally endorse Clinton on Thursday - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/10/congressional-black-caucus-to-formally-endorse-clinton-on-thursday/?postshare=3761455203853138&tid=ss_fb-bottom)

Apparently 90% of the 20 member CBC board voted to endorse Clinton, none voted for Bernie (the other 10% abstained)

The endorsement was made by the CBC PAC, not the CBC.

The majority of the CBC PAC board members are lobbyists, not congressman.

[albionmoonlight]

Jim Webb rules out independent run for president - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/jim-webb-no-independent-bid-219136)

It's like Sage Rosenfels holding a press conference to announce he's not interested in the Broncos' starting QB job if Manning retires.

[ISiddiqui]

The endorsement was made by the CBC PAC, not the CBC.

The majority of the CBC PAC board members are lobbyists, not congressman.

Are you assuming they are unrelated? CBC PAC is the CBC's political arm, and in response to the endorsement a half dozen CBC members are going to South Carolina to campaign for Clinton, including John Lewis. In fact, they held off endorsing anyone because they wanted to wait for SC Rep Jim Clyburn to endorse... and he's planning on endorsing Clinton, so they've gone ahead.

[digamma]

Sanders has a narrow path to staying competitive after Super Tuesday. It involves making states like Georgia, Virginia and Texas respectable (call it >40% results) and winning all of Minnesota, Vermont, Colorado and Massachusetts. If he can also stay close in Nevada and respectable in South Carolina, he could actually emerge from Super Tuesday in a slightly positive pledged delegate position.

Those are all big ifs, and I tend to side with the "there's not actually much of a race going on" contingent.

[NobodyHere]

Are you assuming they are unrelated? CBC PAC is the CBC's political arm, and in response to the endorsement a half dozen CBC members are going to South Carolina to campaign for Clinton, including John Lewis. In fact, they held off endorsing anyone because they wanted to wait for SC Rep Jim Clyburn to endorse... and he's planning on endorsing Clinton, so they've gone ahead.

According to Rep Barbara Lee,

"Amy, first of all, I want to make it clear there’s a clear distinction between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC. We actually have a Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. I don’t want the viewers, your viewers, to believe that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC are one and the same."

"Well, I am not a member of the CBC political action committee. And I think it’s important to discuss that with the PAC members. Once again, there’s a clear firewall. There’s a clear distinction."

As Congressional Black Caucus PAC Prepares to Back Clinton, Barbara Lee Withholds Endorsement | Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/11/as_congressional_black_caucus_pac_prepares)

[ISiddiqui]

According to Rep Barbara Lee,

"Amy, first of all, I want to make it clear there’s a clear distinction between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC. We actually have a Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. I don’t want the viewers, your viewers, to believe that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC are one and the same."

"Well, I am not a member of the CBC political action committee. And I think it’s important to discuss that with the PAC members. Once again, there’s a clear firewall. There’s a clear distinction."

As Congressional Black Caucus PAC Prepares to Back Clinton, Barbara Lee Withholds Endorsement | Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/11/as_congressional_black_caucus_pac_prepares)

Uh... of course there is a firewall between the two groups - they are carrying on political action on behalf of Congressmen. However, they are clearly doing the work of the group they are associated with. Do you not understand how PACs work?

And remember what I said about the CBC PAC waiting for SC Rep Jim Clyburn to make a decision? He's not on the board of the CBC PAC... he is, however, a major member of the CBC proper.

[ISiddiqui]

Here's wiki:

Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee)
Elected officials and political parties cannot give more than the federal limit directly to candidates. However, they can set up a Leadership PAC that makes independent expenditures. Provided the expenditure is not coordinated with the other candidate, this type of spending is not limited.[9]

Under the FEC rules, leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, and can accept donations from individuals and other PACs.

The non-connected part means there does need to be a firewall between the group and their PAC. And make no mistake, it is their PAC. See the picture on the "About" of the CBC PAC website (under "Who We Are")?

http://www.cbcpac.org/about-us

That'd be the Congressional Black Caucus... not the CBC PAC board, but the CBC proper.

[NobodyHere]

They're still distinct entities. An endorsement from the CBC PAC is not an endorsement from the CBC.

[QuikSand]

Sanders has a narrow path to staying competitive after Super Tuesday. It involves making states like Georgia, Virginia and Texas respectable (call it >40% results) and winning all of Minnesota, Vermont, Colorado and Massachusetts. If he can also stay close in Nevada and respectable in South Carolina, he could actually emerge from Super Tuesday in a slightly positive pledged delegate position.

Those are all big ifs, and I tend to side with the "there's not actually much of a race going on" contingent.

Agreed here, except -- I think he has to win Nevada, period. That's his one chance to show some lasting power before he starts to fade out. A win, not a close loss, could stem that tide and uncork some more dollars to feed on. But I think he's all in there.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, it's an endorsement from the political arm of the CBC... still a major deal. The CBC never endorses anyone as a group. Their PAC does. The resources of the CBC's PAC are now in service of the Clinton campaign.

[Ben E Lou]

Now Ellison saying something similar to Lee. Are they splitting hairs, or is there a rift here. I'm reading that the CBC is sending Representatives to SC to shill for HRC on one hand, and on the other some individuals are saying that the CBC hasn't endorsed anyone.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me.</p>&mdash; Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) <a href="https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/697809288203522048">February 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[larrymcg421]

Without input from "all" CBC members would be correct. They clearly had input from some members, and until we hear from more than 2 people questioning this endorsement, it's unlikely that a poll of all members would've changed anything.

There are always defections from endorsements. I doubt all Human Rights Campaign members will vote for Hillary, for example.

[digamma]

...

Ben Branch, the executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus PAC told The Intercept that his group made the decision after a vote from its 20-member board. The board includes 11 lobbyists, seven elected officials, and two officials who work for the PAC. Branch confirmed that the lobbyists were involved in the endorsement, but would not go into detail about the process.


The CBC PAC works to increase the number of African Americans in the U.S. Congress, support non-Black candidates that champion our interests, and promote African American participation in the political process-with an emphasis on young voters. There are currently 46 African Americans in Congress comprising the largest Congressional Black Caucus in history.

[ISiddiqui]

Now Ellison saying something similar to Lee. Are they splitting hairs, or is there a rift here. I'm reading that the CBC is sending Representatives to SC to shill for HRC on one hand, and on the other some individuals are saying that the CBC hasn't endorsed anyone.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me.</p>&mdash; Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) <a href="https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/697809288203522048">February 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Without input from "all" CBC members would be correct. They clearly had input from some members, and until we hear from more than 2 people questioning this endorsement, it's unlikely that a poll of all members would've changed anything.

There are always defections from endorsements. I doubt all Human Rights Campaign members will vote for Hillary, for example.

Bingo. It's not like union endorsements are made by a vote of the entire union, for instance. The CBC's political arm has endorsed Hillary Clinton (and as I point out, waiting for influential CBC member, Rep Clyburn, who isn't on the board of CBC PAC, at least not currently), but that doesn't mean that all the members of the CBC are necessarily in agreement. That'll happen with any organizational endorsement, as pointed out the Human Rights Campaign members aren't going to vote all en bloc.

[ISiddiqui]

So it appears that after the debate, journalists such as Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod (no conservatives) went to Twitter to say that Senator Sanders was full of it when he implied he didn't savagely go after President Obama. I think that's the first time Sanders has been caught like that before in this campaign.

[larrymcg421]

The Sanders supporters on my FB feed have gone absolutely apeshit. They're attacking John Lewis of all people and using a photo that purports to show Bernie at the Selma March, which is almost certainly NOT Sanders. It's getting really tiresome. Love Bernie Sanders. His supporters? Not so much.

[ISiddiqui]

Did anyone else think that Clinton was like super close to Christi-ing (not in the bridge-closing way, the what-he-did-to-Rubio way) Sanders? I mean Sanders' response to him improving race relations over the Obama Administration was going to take tax breaks away from the rich!!!

[Dutch]

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12717615_770184319782080_1663343681933650646_n.jpg?oh=14ce21ab90f645101fe9edc6c2ffc7e2&oe=576BF37D

What&#x27;s a Super Delegate, and Why Did Clinton Win Them? - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-sanders-new-hampshire-victory-wasn-t-so-huge-n516066)

Sorry, bub.

And according to NBC, Sanders did win 15-14 in delegates after the DNC Super Delegates re-arranged the outcome a bit...but I'm guessing he should've won by a bit wider of a margin.

[JPhillips]

Don't get hung up on super delegates. They don't have to commit until the convention. Whomever wins the voting is going to get the nomination. The world is too public to pull any shenanigans with super delegates.

Now, I'll agree the media should stop reporting the counts with super delegates or at least make clear the difference between earned and pledged delegates.

[larrymcg421]

Yeah, if the super delegates ever wanted to flex their muscle like that, then 2008 would've been the perfect time. It was close enough for them to have given the edge to Hillary, but most ended up flipping to Obama to reflect the voters' choices.

[Dutch]

So who invests in these irrelevant super delegates and what is it's purpose then?

[albionmoonlight]

It's all noise unless/until Bernie wins SC or NV. If he does, then it is panic time in Clinton-land. If he does not, then the superdelegates won't matter b/c Clinton will beat him in earned delegates.

[ISiddiqui]

So who invests in these irrelevant super delegates and what is it's purpose then?

They were created, IIRC, back in 1968 with the idea that if there ever was such a contentious convention again that threatened to break out into violence, the superdelegates could bring some order to the proceedings.

Also if there was a wide open field of 4 or 5 viable candidates and none of them could get the majority of pledged delegates, the superdelegates could come up with a victor, rather than going through multiple rounds of voting (as happened in the past).

[JonInMiddleGA]

They were created, IIRC, back in 1968 with the idea that if there ever was such a contentious convention again that threatened to break out into violence, the superdelegates could bring some order to the proceedings.

Also if there was a wide open field of 4 or 5 viable candidates and none of them could get the majority of pledged delegates, the superdelegates could come up with a victor, rather than going through multiple rounds of voting (as happened in the past).

This piece (from 2008) points to them being given such influence as a direct result of the McGovern & Carter defeats. Not a source I'd usually quote from frankly but the use of quotes & coverage from other sources seems legit enough ... fwiw

A Brief History of Superdelegates (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/457181/-)

[albionmoonlight]

Free Beacon Poll: Clinton and Sanders Tied in Nevada (http://freebeacon.com/politics/free-beacon-poll-clinton-and-sanders-tied-in-nevada/)

I mean, if she can't put away Bernie Sanders, then how the hell is she going to beat whomever the hell the GOP puts up?

[larrymcg421]

Free Beacon Poll: Clinton and Sanders Tied in Nevada (http://freebeacon.com/politics/free-beacon-poll-clinton-and-sanders-tied-in-nevada/)

I mean, if she can't put away Bernie Sanders, then how the hell is she going to beat whomever the hell the GOP puts up?

The GOP candidate will likely be much easier to beat than Bernie Sanders.

[Dutch]

The GOP candidate will likely be much easier to beat than Bernie Sanders.

In the last month, the only thing I've heard about Hillary is that she put our national secrets at risk and that she has Madeline Albright stumping for her and demanding ALL women vote for her or they will go to a "special place in hell".

I seriously doubt people are dumb enough on a large enough scale, to vote her into office. She has to be the most worthless candidate of the entire bunch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

She has to be the most worthless candidate of the entire bunch.

No, not even close. I'd go out & gather names on tombstones for her before I'd risk Sanders in office.

[NobodyHere]

I seriously doubt people are dumb enough on a large enough scale, to vote her into office. She has to be the most worthless candidate of the entire bunch.

We the people allegedly voted in Bush twice so yes, the people are dumb enough to vote in Hilary.

[corbes]

She has to be the most worthless candidate of the entire bunch.

Okay, hang on. She might be an undesirable candidate for any number of reasons, but you can't be seriously suggesting that she lacks the substantive qualifications to be a candidate?

[Solecismic]

It's hardly an unbiased source, but this poll, with a relatively large N, spells huge trouble for Clinton in Nevada:

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nv-toplines.pdf

(reading the questions asked, this is really a push poll, so I'd take the results with at least one grain of salt despite the larger N).

Clinton was +23 seven weeks ago in a much smaller Gravis poll.

If this is how she's doing with solid establishment backing, the wall could easily crumble just as quickly as it did eight years ago.

[oykib]

It's hardly an unbiased source, but this poll, with a relatively large N, spells huge trouble for Clinton in Nevada:

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nv-toplines.pdf

(reading the questions asked, this is really a push poll, so I'd take the results with at least one grain of salt despite the larger N).

Clinton was +23 seven weeks ago in a much smaller Gravis poll.

If this is how she's doing with solid establishment backing, the wall could easily crumble just as quickly as it did eight years ago.

We can argue over her qualifications or whether she'd be good in office. I don't think, at this point, it can be argued that she isn't one of the worst campaigners we've ever seen. No matter whether her institutional advantages pull this nomination out for her or not, this is the second time she's blown what was thought to be an insurmountable lead.

You might be able to argue that Obama was a transformational figure. But Bernie Sanders... I've been a Sanders fan for years, and I scoffed when he announced his candidacy. I figured that the best he could hope for was to push her slightly to the left. As of now, the campaign is being fought almost entirely over his issues. It's truly amazing.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, but how many people even know what her issues are?

[EagleFan]

No, not even close. I'd go out & gather names on tombstones for her before I'd risk Sanders in office.

+1

[NobodyHere]

Yeah, but how many people even know what her issues are?

They only need to look at the latest polling.

spoilered for size
http://i.imgur.com/4lIqvD4.gif

[Julio Riddols]

I think what it shows is that there is a hunger out there among the populace for something completely different than the typical established candidate. The reason Sanders keeps trending up is because he offers a departure from the systemic buying and selling of candidates by big businesses, etc. He offers a departure from the nature of politics by not playing the attack ad game, coming off as very genuine (because in all likelihood he is very genuine) and just generally not being a typical politician. I think in much the same way, Trump has captured the same type of crowd from the opposite side. Maybe what they stand for as candidates doesn't play to everyone, but who they are compared to the traditional candidates is what makes people want to hear and see what they can do. The public pretty much knows what they can expect from the typical candidate by now. They're ready for something different.

Even if neither Trump nor Sanders was able to get their ideas through congress, I think this is a lasting push back we're seeing from the people. Typical candidates aren't going to find themselves being looked at favorably any more when an alternative makes itself available. This day and age it is easier than ever to prove you are not who you say you are, and I think that reflects in the polls. I hope it carries down through the house and senate as well, and I hope it results in the eventual face lift our lawmaking body needs in order to earn some level of trust among the people they govern.

[albionmoonlight]

No good polling out, but the signs are all pointing to Nevada being close.

I mean, if she can't put away Bernie in Nevada?

The Dems will either be stuck with Bernie or with a candidate who had a hell of a time beating Bernie. Neither bodes well.

[Neuqua]

I'm trying to think of the sports equivalent of Hillary's performances the last two cycles. The USA Men's basketball teams before Colangelo took over?

[lighthousekeeper]

I'm trying to think of the sports equivalent of Hillary's performances the last two cycles. The USA Men's basketball teams before Colangelo took over?

heh - that's really good.

[larrymcg421]

No good polling out, but the signs are all pointing to Nevada being close.

I mean, if she can't put away Bernie in Nevada?

The Dems will either be stuck with Bernie or with a candidate who had a hell of a time beating Bernie. Neither bodes well.

Does it really count as "a hell of a time" if she destroys him on Super Tuesday?

[ISiddiqui]

No good polling out, but the signs are all pointing to Nevada being close.

I mean, if she can't put away Bernie in Nevada?

The Dems will either be stuck with Bernie or with a candidate who had a hell of a time beating Bernie. Neither bodes well.

Though three polls just came out in South Carolina, all of them have Hillary around +20. Southern firewall.

[QuikSand]

Does it really count as "a hell of a time" if she destroys him on Super Tuesday?

No, it doesn't. And if it happens that way, and then she rolls on to win the big midwestern states afterward, then it won't be much trouble in the final analysis.

But insiders forget just how many outsiders there are. Sanders won NH. Wow, big deal, we knew that. We immediately got into margin and message and money and so forth. But the headline was still SANDERS WINS in big letters.

Then, based mainly on the completely predictable outcome in NH, Sanders got momentum and money to go fight a legit fight in Nevada. And the "before things got hot" polling there was a Clinton landslide too. Now it's a toss-up. That's just how the state-by-state system works.

I still think she's the winner at the end. But if he wins Nevada by any margin at all, he could gain some momentum to not get completely flattened in the deep south, and he could make it a pretty substantive and possibly drawn-out race.

[flere-imsaho]

Jim Webb rules out independent run for president - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/jim-webb-no-independent-bid-219136)

It's like Sage Rosenfels holding a press conference to announce he's not interested in the Broncos' starting QB job if Manning retires.

I love this post so much. :D

[albionmoonlight]

There seems to be a slight arbitrage opportunity at PredictIt right now. There's an old market on will the next president elected be a woman. It is not getting much play. You can buy a No share on that market and a Yes share on Hillary Clinton on the "who will win the presidency" market for ~.90. The only way that those don't turn into a dollar is if we end up with a non-Hillary woman being elected.

I have not dug into this, so there may not be a ton of shares available. And PredictIt limits your purchases. But, .90 to get a dollar in November, for those who want to look into it.

[panerd]

There seems to be a slight arbitrage opportunity at PredictIt right now. There's an old market on will the next president elected be a woman. It is not getting much play. You can buy a No share on that market and a Yes share on Hillary Clinton on the "who will win the presidency" market for ~.90. The only way that those don't turn into a dollar is if we end up with a non-Hillary woman being elected.

I have not dug into this, so there may not be a ton of shares available. And PredictIt limits your purchases. But, .90 to get a dollar in November, for those who want to look into it.

I wonder why it was ever that way? Fiorina? Palin a long time ago? Obama pulls martial law like I've been reading on some internet sites? :)

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder why it was ever that way? Fiorina? Palin a long time ago? Obama pulls martial law like I've been reading on some internet sites? :)

It was established early so folks like Fiorina, Palin, Warren, and Haley were still possible.

[digamma]

Didn't take long for that to go away. It's like a 97 cent price now.

[QuikSand]

We need a website for that sort of stuff.

[JPhillips]

Looks like Hillary is going to get a narrow win in NV. That might spell the end for Bernie. He's in for a real rough patch in the next couple of weeks.

[Solecismic]

It's still all about the email thing. In the end, an elderly, angry Jewish white man, even if he's in tune with the politics of the left, is going to struggle to gain votes.

Everyone should notice, on both sides, the enthusiasm he generates from younger white voters, however. He may be a long shot himself, but his message is an important one for the future of American politics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting bit of "magic wall" analysis on CNN earlier. If Hillary wins every remaining state by a 55-45 margin, taking 49 of 50 states, then she would arrive at the convention short of pledged delegates for the nomination. She'd go over the top with superdelegates of course but she's not exactly keen on that method.

Can you imagine how badly that would gall her? To be beholden like that?
As utterly loathsome as her opponent is, the prospect is at least mildly amusing.

[Thomkal]

Oops wrong thread

[ISiddiqui]

Looks like Hillary is going to get a narrow win in NV. That might spell the end for Bernie. He's in for a real rough patch in the next couple of weeks.

Especially when you look at some entrance polling data and you see blacks went overwhelming for Clinton. SC and Super Tuesday should give Clinton a massive lead.

[ISiddiqui]

Everyone should notice, on both sides, the enthusiasm he generates from younger white voters, however. He may be a long shot himself, but his message is an important one for the future of American politics.

And when you look at the enthusiasm generated at the right, one wonders who may be left in the future for those in the middle. Are the two major parties doomed to move more and more to the edges?

[JPhillips]

Until the people in the middle show the same energy and willingness to finance campaigns, yeah.

[QuikSand]

Right now is the moment to appreciate the sheer power of winning. Everyone with a newspaper or calculator knew that Trump would win easily, right? If we had a poll in this thread, 20 of 20 people would have called SC for Trump.

Look at the reactions today. Insiders are gobbling up the close run for 2nd and who might drop out, but just look at all the buzz on "Trump Wins" as if it's a game-changer. Newspapers tomorrow will be full of that "news" and analysis for a full cycle.

That's why I felt like Sanders needed to win Nevada, not just come close. Looks like the (D) takeaway is somewhere in the middle, but for him there's a massive perception differential between a close win and a close loss. He's going to look back on an alarmingly small number of caucus voters in two states and think about what might have been. (cf Bern Your Enthusiasm)

I agree with this guy.

[QuikSand]

Everyone should notice, on both sides, the enthusiasm he generates from younger white voters, however. He may be a long shot himself, but his message is an important one for the future of American politics.

ping Elizabeth Warren

[flere-imsaho]

It's still all about the email thing.

Unless there's a smoking gun (and I think we would have seen one by now), I don't see how the "email thing" is going to create new people who distrust Clinton. Again, she's been a known quantity for over two decades. Opinions on her are calcified. They're not going to change because of the latest Republican witch hunt.

[flere-imsaho]

Everyone should notice, on both sides, the enthusiasm he generates from younger white voters, however. He may be a long shot himself, but his message is an important one for the future of American politics.

The same young, white, college educated, middle to upper-middle to upper-class voters who also found/find standard bearers in Warren (per QS), Wellstone, Kucinich, Bradley, etc....

It's great, but it doesn't win a national election.

[QuikSand]

I think I'm with Jim suggesting that if an improbable candidate like Sanders can make this serious a run by lighting a fire with that subset of the (D) universe, then maybe that's a serious shift. Of course Kucinich wasn't serious...but the numbers bore that out resoundingly. Nothing to see here.

This time, when Sanders declared he was running, virtually everyone pegged this as a similar quixotic effort to generate conversation and to drive some left-leaning elements into the party platform and debate. Which is a healthy part of the process, many wold say. But he wasn't actually running to be President.

The fact that he ha made this into this much of a race is possibly a sign that the party is really primed for something different. Maybe it's transient, but maybe not. If I'm in the half dozen people working with Senator Warren, though, I am really liking what I'm seeing here. She could be the next one to take that torch, and could work for the next few years on outreach across racial lines to address the obvious weak spot there.

She could be a really powerful candidate in 4/8 years.

[Solecismic]

Politically strong, yes, but she will be 71 in 2020. What the Democrats want is someone in his or her 30s right now who can get up there at the convention in July and attract notice. I don't know if that person exists.

[oykib]

Politically strong, yes, but she will be 71 in 2020. What the Democrats want is someone in his or her 30s right now who can get up there at the convention in July and attract notice. I don't know if that person exists.

I think the Clintons want that to be Cory Booker. He's the only youngish surrogate they have doing the talking head circuit.

[ISiddiqui]

Though I think its somewhat telling that the far-left folks attracting notice are a person in his 70s and a person in her 60s. It appears to me that the younger elected Democrats are bit less anti-capitalist than the Sanders or Warrens of the world would like, and are more third way.

[JPhillips]

Who knows what the mood will be in the next open Dem election, but if it's like this year, Booker is a square peg for a round hole.

I think the Dems do have a problem with a shallow bench. Partially that's a legacy of 2010 redistricting and partially that's what happens when you've held the WH for 16 of 24 years. Generally young candidates are insurgents.

[digamma]

Unless there's a smoking gun (and I think we would have seen one by now), I don't see how the "email thing" is going to create new people who distrust Clinton. Again, she's been a known quantity for over two decades. Opinions on her are calcified. They're not going to change because of the latest Republican witch hunt.

It's not about creating new people who distrust Clinton. It's about her not being able to capture pretty core Democratic voters who see this as another reason not to vote for her. I count myself in this category.

[Ben E Lou]

Unless there's a smoking gun (and I think we would have seen one by now), I don't see how the "email thing" is going to create new people who distrust Clinton. Again, she's been a known quantity for over two decades. Opinions on her are calcified. They're not going to change because of the latest Republican witch hunt.I *think* what Jim is saying there (and if this is what he's saying, I agree with it,) is that the chances that Sanders have for earning the nomination are "still all about the email thing." In other words, apart from HRC dropping dead, Sanders has basically no hope of getting the nomination unless that thing blows up crazy, she gets indicted, etc.

[QuikSand]

And more importantly than the substance of the email thing is the impression it leaves. It's just a constant reminder that when you're in the Clinton business, you are simply going to be surrounded by outright sliminess, legalistic excuses, absurd denialism, and questionable judgment. Despite the whitewash of the Bill Clinton record, that is a real hallmark of what he brought to the White House. Not entirely of his doing, no, but it's definitely the way they operate.

So... even if you don't really care about the email thing, having the latest Clintonesque mini-scandal still floating around does serve a political purpose. I think an awful lot of people with "Ready for Hillary" bumper stickers would still bite their lip a bit if asked one of those perennial poll questions "Which candidate do you trust?" You need to be hardcore to stay in step there.

[corbes]

I'm still of the view that Bernie wouldn't have this much support if the mainstream voters were enthused at all about the mainstream candidate, but I think a lot of Hillary's support is in, as QS and digamma suggested, the "bite their lip" camp.

[Drake]

I'll put it this way: I'm voting for Sanders in the primary (assuming he's still in the race by May, when Indiana does its primary)...but by the general election, I'll likely not be voting democrat.

I don't dislike Clinton on policy, generally. (Plenty of quibbles, but not any more than I have with dems overall.) I just don't feel like she's honest. And I can't vote for that. I'll vote for the opposition first...or more likely, I'll throw my vote away on a third party if the opposition turns out to be Trump or Cruz.

How you try to get us to where I think we should be going is just as important to me as getting there.

[stevew]

I'll put it this way: I'm voting for Sanders in the primary (assuming he's still in the race by May, when Indiana does its primary)...but by the general election, I'll likely not be voting democrat.

I don't dislike Clinton on policy, generally. (Plenty of quibbles, but not any more than I have with dems overall.) I just don't feel like she's honest. And I can't vote for that. I'll vote for the opposition first...or more likely, I'll throw my vote away on a third party if the opposition turns out to be Trump or Cruz.

How you try to get us to where I think we should be going is just as important to me as getting there.

+1

[AlexB]

I'll put it this way: I'm voting for Sanders in the primary (assuming he's still in the race by May, when Indiana does its primary)...but by the general election, I'll likely not be voting democrat.

I don't dislike Clinton on policy, generally. (Plenty of quibbles, but not any more than I have with dems overall.) I just don't feel like she's honest. And I can't vote for that. I'll vote for the opposition first...or more likely, I'll throw my vote away on a third party if the opposition turns out to be Trump or Cruz.

How you try to get us to where I think we should be going is just as important to me as getting there.

Reading this, am I right that anyone can vote in the Democratic/Republican primaries? Always assumed that you had to be a paid up member of that particular party to vote in the primaries.

[molson]

Reading this, am I right that anyone can vote in the Democratic/Republican primaries? Always assumed that you had to be a paid up member of that particular party to vote in the primaries.

Every state (or really, the party leaders in that state) can make its own rules on that. In my state, the Dem primary is open to anyone who isn't a registered Republican, the Republican primary is open only to registered Republicans.

Edit: This link has a list of primaries with info about which are closed to party members and which are open.

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

[QuikSand]

...and comments like those are a reason why I think the SCOTUS vacancy is on balance good for the Democrats in the general election. If you lean that way, but have reservations about the party nominee, there's nothing better than fraidy-cat fearmongering about a crazy Court (or the ability to stop one) to help crack the whip and get you back in line. Surely that strategy will be fully sharpened by July.

[flere-imsaho]

I *think* what Jim is saying there (and if this is what he's saying, I agree with it,) is that the chances that Sanders have for earning the nomination are "still all about the email thing." In other words, apart from HRC dropping dead, Sanders has basically no hope of getting the nomination unless that thing blows up crazy, she gets indicted, etc.

Oh, if that's what Jim meant, then I certainly agree. What I would emphasize is that constant mentions of "the email thing" are either wishful thinking or just concern trolling at this point.

And more importantly than the substance of the email thing is the impression it leaves. It's just a constant reminder that when you're in the Clinton business, you are simply going to be surrounded by outright sliminess, legalistic excuses, absurd denialism, and questionable judgment. Despite the whitewash of the Bill Clinton record, that is a real hallmark of what he brought to the White House. Not entirely of his doing, no, but it's definitely the way they operate.

Yes, fine, but let's not forget that this is primarily the product of a GOP cottage industry built to slime the Clintons that started with Gennifer Flowers in 1992 and show no signs of abating. Did anything Bill Clinton do approach the significance of selling the Iraq War, or outing Valerie Plame, or Iran Contra, just to name a few examples.

Perhaps the Clintons don't help themselves with their manner, but to essentially assert that the Clinton Administration was more shady than any since Nixon is to simply buy the narrative as told by Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and everyone else in that circle over the past two decades. Kudos to the GOP for creating such a lasting stain on the Democratic party, but let's not pretend it's anything other than a particularly effective smear campaign.

[JonInMiddleGA]

O but let's not pretend it's anything other than a particularly effective smear campaign.

Hell, I didn't know there were even any Ds left that tried to defend the Clinton's as anything other than the slimiest occupants of the WH in history. It's not even that hard for me to find Ds that will admit they figure Hil had Foster murdered.

Learn something new every day I guess.

[Ben E Lou]

I'll vote for the opposition first...or more likely, I'll throw my vote away on a third party if the opposition turns out to be Trump or Cruz.I could be wrong, but I *think* this is an unusual position, and that brings up a dynamic that is increasingly likely to be in play in November: in a Clinton vs. Trump general, we have the potential for record turnouts, but not because of enthusiasm for a candidate, but because of utter disdain/hatred of the other side's candidate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

in a Clinton vs. Trump general, we have the potential for record turnouts, but not because of enthusiasm for a candidate, but because of utter disdain/hatred of the other side's candidate.

I dunno, Hillary simply isn't nearly the boogeyman she once was when you put her beside Grandpa Unicorn.

The hate still exists for HC but I honestly don't get a sense that it's as widespread. I mean, hell, they've managed to find a candidate that could get me to actively campaign for her (hypothetically) so I think that HC-hate remains deep but not quite as wide as it once was.

[Solecismic]

Or utter disdain for both candidates. I can see where record numbers of those who usually vote just leave that field empty. Of the five who still seem in the running, I could never vote for four and the fifth becomes more unappealing every day.

I think the Clintons want that to be Cory Booker. He's the only youngish surrogate they have doing the talking head circuit.

My take on this is that young people are just as angry as everyone else. Polls consistently show the generic congress-beast is extraordinarily unpopular.

For fiscal conservatives, the reason is the debt. If we're approaching $20 trillion in debt, we're spending our future. They genuinely believe that their children will be the first generation in America who will be less well off down the road.

Under Obama alone, the national debt will have grown by about $40,000 per person.

But how is that message received by Sanders supporters? Well, you look at who supports him and it's as overwhelming an age thing as anything I've seen in politics. He sees the same problem as the fiscal conservatives. His answer is that if older people are spending their children's future through bigger government, the answer is to spend that money directly on the children instead. They see today's politics as a big party where old people are propping themselves up with tomorrow's money. They want their share before it's all gone.

Fiscal conservatives want smaller government to fix the debt problem itself. Sanders wants bigger government to literally insure that future. Same primary issue, but radically different solutions.

[AlexB]

Every state (or really, the party leaders in that state) can make its own rules on that. In my state, the Dem primary is open to anyone who isn't a registered Republican, the Republican primary is open only to registered Republicans.

Edit: This link has a list of primaries with info about which are closed to party members and which are open.

http://www.OX26 1UY.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

Thanks for the link. Didn't know that the Pacific Islands had their caucuses either. Or Puerto Rico.

After a quick Wikipedia check these territories can vote for the presidential nomination but not for the Presidential elections. Is there a particular reason for this?

[Drake]

...and comments like those are a reason why I think the SCOTUS vacancy is on balance good for the Democrats in the general election. If you lean that way, but have reservations about the party nominee, there's nothing better than fraidy-cat fearmongering about a crazy Court (or the ability to stop one) to help crack the whip and get you back in line. Surely that strategy will be fully sharpened by July.

Part of the problem is that I'm not a very good (or very dedicated, I guess) progressive by Dem standards. I'm a registered Democrat, but I actually prefer the SCOTUS to lean to the conservative side.

I'm a staunch believer in the idea that you need progressives to push the "everyman" envelope, but you also need powerful conservatives to slow them down...because people excited about anything are generally idiots. But you also need progressives to be rabble-rousing constantly and pushing the agenda for various sorts of social reforms...because runaway conservatives have a tendency to be authoritarian assholes. (And I don't even mean the political leadership -- I mean the people in my own town, the people on my Facebook, the average grassroots citizen.)

To some extent, I have the luxury of taking the long view, looking at generational progress rather than "this shit needs to be fixed NOW because the situation has become untenable!!!" because I'm a middle class white guy in mostly rural middle America. I also figure that there's never going to be an end of problems to be solved, so it's not like we're ever going to arrive at some progressive or conservative Promised Land where someone delivers fully on all of the promises of their ideals.

I think I'm a very naive voter in most ways, because the general election is more like the World Cup of Politics for me. Every four years, I give a shit. In between, I'm not really paying much attention.

[stevew]

Thanks for the link. Didn't know that the Pacific Islands had their caucuses either. Or Puerto Rico.

After a quick Wikipedia check these territories can vote for the presidential nomination but not for the Presidential elections. Is there a particular reason for this?

The state by state and DC voting is for electoral college votes with the winner of each state getting all of the electoral college votes for the state*. There are 538 of these votes for president, so you need 270. The territories do not have any electoral college representation so even if they voted for the president it wouldn't actually matter.

They can vote for the nominee because they are part of the national party, although they have very few delegates.


*a few states have some weird proportional districting of their electoral college votes, but it's winner take all in the vast majority of states.

[larrymcg421]

How you try to get us to where I think we should be going is just as important to me as getting there.

If my views on politics have shifted any in the last few years, it's to emphasize the latter over the former to such a degree where it's not even close. And it's not that in a vacuum I wouldn't highly value character, but I can't imagine, for example, subjecting gay Americans to a rollback of their recent civil rights gains because that other guy seemed so nice.

[flere-imsaho]

Hell, I didn't know there were even any Ds left that tried to defend the Clinton's as anything other than the slimiest occupants of the WH in history. It's not even that hard for me to find Ds that will admit they figure Hil had Foster murdered.

You're just daring me to use the rolleyes emoticon now.


My take on this is that young people are just as angry as everyone else.

And with plenty of good reason. Not only, as you note, are they likely to have a lower standard of living than their parents, but getting off the ground post-College is now harder than ever.

I would say that Trump and Sanders are articulating different solutions to these problems for young people that speak directly to different demographic groups within that group of young people.

They genuinely believe that their children will be the first generation in America who will be less well off down the road.

I don't think you even have to be a fiscal conservative to believe that.

[cuervo72]

Has it been established that our generation is better off than our parents?

(I mean, we're talking Millennials, right? Because I'm not sure Gen X has ever toppled the Boomers.)

[flere-imsaho]

It's a good question, cuervo. One that can't be completely answered until the generation dies off, of course, but I think the common wisdom is that GenX is the first U.S. generation that won't improve on the preceding generation, and the Millennials might be the first generation that slips backwards.

The big positive impact that might help GenX is how much the Boomer retirement wave opens up advancement opportunities. But, on the other hand, if the Boomers continue their tradition of gutting every government benefit* as they age out of it, GenX could have especially difficult retirements.


*Generally those put in place by their parents' generation.

[cuervo72]

If we don't get skipped*, anyway. I figure I'm already considered too old in my field to be any next hot thing...

FWIW, I'm not even considering retirement. I figure I'm going to work until I physically can't.


* I was thinking about this in terms of representation, too. At least at the top. As has been mentioned, we still have Clinton, Trump, Sanders being talked about in this election, and folks setting up Warren as a future candidate. Cruz and Rubio are around my age (couple years older), but what if Hillary wins and gets 8 years? How many elections do the Xers get past that before we are considered too old -- even if we aren't as old as the Boomers still sticking around? Will we have the same staying power?

[Kodos]

Reality bites.

[ISiddiqui]

I dunno, Hillary simply isn't nearly the boogeyman she once was when you put her beside Grandpa Unicorn.

And I think that is where Hillary Clinton will thank God in the general election that Bernie Sanders was her main primary opponent, and actually got a bit of traction. The reason being when Trump (or whoever) tries to call Hillary Clinton a socialist (as they will), the attack will bounce off simply due to the fact that you actually had an honest-to-goodness Democratic Socialist on the Dem Primary ballot who attempted to pummel Clinton from the left.

As for the other discussion going on, I'm with flere here. The right has been trying to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at the Clintons. I'm not going to deny that Bill, especially, has been a slick operator. However, I'm also not sold that his 'sliminess' was an outlier. Maybe George H.W. Bush didn't get personally his hands dirty, but he definitely had Lee Atwater do so. And maybe George W. Bush didn't personally get his hands dirty - but Karl Rove and Dick Cheney definitely got his dirty work done. Is it because there is a feeling that Clinton is more personally involved in the dirty work?

Anyways, I trust Hillary Clinton to get policy done, or at the very least work to pass policy. She may be slick herself (though I think most of that is just Bill slickness that gets transferred onto her), but whatever slickness is there is in service of passing her agenda... you know, LBJ like (hopefully).

[Kodos]

I'll take Bill's slickness over GWB dragging us into unneeded wars anytime. Bill is the best president in my lifetime.

[digamma]

We need a website for that sort of stuff.

Similar opportunity.

NO on Will the Democrats win is currently at a 39 cent buy.

HILLARY to win is currently at 49 cents.

[lighthousekeeper]

Reality bites.

:lol:

[ISiddiqui]

I'll take Bill's slickness over GWB dragging us into unneeded wars anytime. Bill is the best president in my lifetime.

I'll put Obama over Bill, but I share the sentiment. I just kind of look at these Sanders supporters raking Bill Clinton over the coals and am just left with my mouth gaping. Didn't they realize what happened in the 3 Presidential elections prior to Clinton winning? Or just how Congress refused to let his most progressive policies passed (Universal Health Care, gays in the military - Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a compromise), and then he turned to the center to get things done. Some of the stuff isn't what people on the left would prefer today, but there was widespread desire for those changes back then, and of course things move forward (I'm sure FDR was against gay marriage too ;)).

Add to that there are tons of folks, esp in the Democratic Party down South, that still like Bill Clinton.

[flere-imsaho]

Unemployment:

Dec, 1992: 7.4%
Dec, 2000: 3.9%

U.S. Deficit (inflation adjusted):

1991: $496B Deficit
2000: $329B Surplus

Median Income (inflation adjusted);

Dec, 1992: $50,421
Dec, 2000: $56,466

[lighthousekeeper]

Unemployment:

Dec, 1992: 7.4%
Dec, 2000: 3.9%

U.S. Deficit (inflation adjusted):

1991: $496B Deficit
2000: $329B Surplus

Median Income (inflation adjusted);

Dec, 1992: $50,421
Dec, 2000: $56,466

With this important caveat though, right?

https://flatworldbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/dot-com-bubble.jpg

2000 was en equally good time to exit the white house and the stock market.

[Solecismic]

Interesting letter from Charles Koch:

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?postshare=4451455841739004&tid=ss_tw)

It's rather telling that the Koch brothers have been relatively quiet during this cycle, though at one point they seemed to be behind Fiorina.

[cuervo72]

I have heard though (here even maybe?) that his opposition to that might be a little more self-serving than it might appear. He touches upon it with ethanol subsidies, but he's probably also against them for other fledgling industries like solar energy or alternative-fuel cars. Who would benefit from these industries being stifled? Oil. Which the Koch bothers are rather invested in. So yeah, he might well oppose "corporate welfare" if his corporate interests are already at the top of the heap.

[JPhillips]

Interesting letter from Charles Koch:

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?postshare=4451455841739004&tid=ss_tw)

It's rather telling that the Koch brothers have been relatively quiet during this cycle, though at one point they seemed to be behind Fiorina.

They've said for the past year that they are basically neutral in the primary, but will commit to spend around 750 mil in the general.

[bronconick]

Interesting letter from Charles Koch:

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?postshare=4451455841739004&tid=ss_tw)

It's rather telling that the Koch brothers have been relatively quiet during this cycle, though at one point they seemed to be behind Fiorina.

They had to go back to the drawing board when Scott Walker shot his dick off last year.

[flere-imsaho]

With this important caveat though, right?

Absolutely. But even non-dot-com growth was good.

[Ben E Lou]

BLM paid to get a protester (well, probably two, someone was clearly ready to video) into a $500-a-head HRC fundraiser last night in Charleston, and this happened. FWIW, this is being picked up and disseminated by mainstream media outlets in South Carolina. (I first saw it a few minutes ago on the FB feed from the Charleston CBS affiliate, Live 5 News.)

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WLPOotPu_RE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Checking the online chatter from the far left. Some are claiming that it's Bill's voice at the 1:04 point claiming that she's trespassing at an event where she paid $500 to attend. I don't think it is him, but that'd be pretty funny if so.

[Dutch]

haha, no way that's the Prez....he doesn't do $500 per head...

[larrymcg421]

Another national poll has Clinton and Sanders in a dead heat. IBD/Tipp shows it as a 45-43 race in favor of Clinton.

But recent state polling has Clinton with 20%+ leads in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Georgia, and a 15% lead in Ohio. What's going on here? There's no way they're tied nationally with those state numbers.

[flere-imsaho]

Different polling companies and/or poll methods? Or Sanders is doing really well in other states?

[bronconick]

Another national poll has Clinton and Sanders in a dead heat. IBD/Tipp shows it as a 45-43 race in favor of Clinton.

But recent state polling has Clinton with 20%+ leads in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Georgia, and a 15% lead in Ohio. What's going on here? There's no way they're tied nationally with those state numbers.

People like him nationally but when asked about their state, slide to Hillary?

[lighthousekeeper]

Another national poll has Clinton and Sanders in a dead heat. IBD/Tipp shows it as a 45-43 race in favor of Clinton.

But recent state polling has Clinton with 20%+ leads in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Georgia, and a 15% lead in Ohio. What's going on here? There's no way they're tied nationally with those state numbers.

Don't really know what IBD/Tipp is, but here it shows IBD/Tipp lead is 50-38. America's Most Accurate Pollster (http://www.tipponline.com/)

[larrymcg421]

Don't really know what IBD/Tipp is, but here it shows IBD/Tipp lead is 50-38. America's Most Accurate Pollster (http://www.tipponline.com/)

This just came out today: Clinton, Sanders Are In A Dead Heat; Trump Leads But Rubio Rises | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD (http://www.investors.com/politics/clinton-and-sanders-in-a-dead-heat-as-super-tuesday-looms/)

[larrymcg421]

Different polling companies and/or poll methods? Or Sanders is doing really well in other states?

There's almost no way Sanders could have enough of an edge in other states (especially with Hillary's huge lead in the South) to make those numbers work.

The different companies/methods was my thought, but even the same firms can have odd results. Both Fox News and Quinnipiac have tied national results, but give Hillary a big edge in states where she should be drowning if her overall lead is dwindling.

[Butter]

Heh. Checking the online chatter from the far left. Some are claiming that it's Bill's voice at the 1:04 point claiming that she's trespassing at an event where she paid $500 to attend. I don't think it is him, but that'd be pretty funny if so.

Voice is not scratchy enough. Also, he would've at least had the courtesy to escort her to a separate, private room in the house. You know, where they could be alone and talk about the issues.

[JPhillips]

There's almost no way Sanders could have enough of an edge in other states (especially with Hillary's huge lead in the South) to make those numbers work.

The different companies/methods was my thought, but even the same firms can have odd results. Both Fox News and Quinnipiac have tied national results, but give Hillary a big edge in states where she should be drowning if her overall lead is dwindling.

I'd guess likely voter screens or lack thereof has a lot to do with the difference.

[Kodos]

It's gotta suck when you are on the spot like that. Hillary tried to actually talk to her, but the lady clearly didn't want an actual discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

There's almost no way Sanders could have enough of an edge in other states (especially with Hillary's huge lead in the South) to make those numbers work.

Yeah, the incongruousness makes no sense. Clinton is even expanding her lead in states like Texas, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania. Maybe people answer differently when you ask who would you want for the Democratic nominee and who are you voting for in your state's primary? Maybe answer with (as the saying goes) with the heart in the national (who do you want) and with the head in the state (who do you think would win/be more effective)? That's the only thing I can think of.

Hillary tried to actually talk to her, but the lady clearly didn't want an actual discussion.

I found that hurt the BLM message - when Clinton actually did say "Let's talk about that issue" and the woman wouldn't let her get two words in. For an effective protest, you let Clinton answer and get the response on video, ask a few more pointed questions, and then tear it apart later.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You can't make this stuff up......

“We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there is a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - Hillary Clinton

[cartman]

Yeah, what an indefensible gaffe. The Constitution only explicitly mentions a right to life and liberty (5th and 14th Amendements), only the Declaration of Independence mentions happiness. She is doomed. :rolleyes:

[oykib]

Yeah, what an indefensible gaffe. The Constitution only explicitly mentions a right to life and liberty (5th and 14th Amendements), only the Declaration of Independence mentions happiness. She is doomed. :rolleyes:

I got the impression that he was pointing out her tendency to utter platitudes that try to cover both sides. I don't think anyone questions her understanding of the Constitution.

No one (reasonable) argues that Hillary is stupid. The critique is that she's either dishonest or a shameless panderer.

[cartman]

The gun lobby wouldn't consider that pandering to their side, to try and claim that the 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

[cartman]

Dola,

I'm certain that MBBF was referring to the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" quote from the Declaration of Independence not being in the Constitution, as that discussion is lighting up the conservative websites this evening.

[flere-imsaho]

The critique is that she's either dishonest or a shameless panderer.

As I've said before, this tendency Bill Clinton had as President to parse his words carefully and always find a rhetorical "middle ground" has dogged Democrats in general since his Presidency. It's not been helped by the fact that the GOP went in the opposite direction with Rove & Luntz applying actual study to the reaction of the public to specific words, and using those words, in the guise of "plain talk" to hammer the Democrats.

Trump is the end state of this strategy, and Clinton is its anti-thesis. Trump does nothing but "straight talk" (form, not function). Sure, it's often contradictory, meaningless or flat out wrong, but the delivery is what is key and, critically, is what the GOP establishment has been cultivating in their base for the past 20+ years.

On the flipside, the way Clinton (H) speaks is simply a problem. As plenty have noted, when you look at her actual positions, she aligns nicely with most Democrats. But this endless parsing and hedging creates the opposite perception. I would hazard that's part of the reason for Sanders' appeal.

Clinton absolutely needs to change this. Become more clear and more genuine.

[ISiddiqui]

On the flipside, the way Clinton (H) speaks is simply a problem. As plenty have noted, when you look at her actual positions, she aligns nicely with most Democrats. But this endless parsing and hedging creates the opposite perception. I would hazard that's part of the reason for Sanders' appeal.

Clinton absolutely needs to change this. Become more clear and more genuine.

Eh... I don't think it is in any ungenuine. She's a lawyer (that's not a critique or joke). As a lawyer myself (or at least trained in law), I notice that plenty of times I refrain from making totally definitive statements and 'hedge' and 'parse' - probably because I took to heart the first commandment of law school - "It depends". The notion being that there isn't any one definitive answer; it depends on the facts and circumstances.

[flere-imsaho]

Sorry, I'm not saying she isn't genuine. I'm saying her manner makes her seem ungenuine (not a word, but I'm going to use it).

Same for Bill.

[Kodos]

It's trying too hard to cover all the bases, instead of saying "I feel this way, if you don't--too bad!"

[ISiddiqui]

Sorry, I'm not saying she isn't genuine. I'm saying her manner makes her seem ungenuine (not a word, but I'm going to use it).

Same for Bill.

I got you. I can definitely see that - it's why there are those stereotypes of lawyers in general.

[molson]

probably because I took to heart the first commandment of law school - "It depends". The notion being that there isn't any one definitive answer; it depends on the facts and circumstances.

That, and it's really, really big problem if you make a false statement to a court. I try so hard to be prepared enough that I can avoid hedging as much as possible when talking to courts, but if you're not 100% sure on a fact or something a case said, you have to hedge your statement. It's easy for that habit to trickle into regular life.

[ISiddiqui]

It appears exit polling has South Carolina an even greater win than expected for Hillary Clinton. I read over a 35 point win according to early exit polls - bolstered by a massive 5-1 win in African-American voters. That's going to really make Super Tuesday difficult for Sanders.

[bronconick]

Blacks over 65 went for Clinton 96-3.

[bhlloy]

Turnout has got to be keeping the DNC up at night. Paradoxically keeping Trump out may be the only way they can get their voters out during the general and allow them to win. Can't help thinking Romney or McCain might have won this in their sleep.

[digamma]

Nate Silver wrote about this after last weekend. There's little correlation to primary turnout and general election results and turnout.

[Solecismic]

Best way to avoid a burn is to set up a good firewall. South Carolina was perfect timing for Hillary.

[flere-imsaho]

Trump & Cruz are hateable enough to get Democrats over their Hillary apathy.

Rubio & Bush are/weren't, which is why they worry/worried strategists more.

[ISiddiqui]

Yikes, the updated exit polling is looking even worse for Sanders.

With 57% of the vote in, Clinton is up by 50 points... WOW.

[ISiddiqui]

88% in, it looks like Clinton will win by at least 45 points. This is a disaster for Sanders.

[Thomkal]

He'll stay through Super Tuesday I'm sure, but stick a fork in him I think

[JPhillips]

74-26 is way more lopsided than I expected. I was thinking 60-40 as a best case for Hillary. Sanders may stay in for a long time, but after Tuesday it will just be a vanity run.

[EagleFan]

Great to see. Send Sanders to the scrap heap.

[bronconick]

He'll stay through Super Tuesday I'm sure, but stick a fork in him I think

I think he'll suspend on the 15th. Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Perfect storm for Sanders. 2/3rd black voters in the primary (per the exit polling sample at leaste), and they went roughly 2/3rds Hilary. And predominantly female, and predominantly older.

I don't know that he could have bought a vote under the circumstances ... but maybe he should tried it.

[stevew]

I dunno why he would suspend. He's not a democrat and he's still doing way better than could have been expected.

[bronconick]

Well, maybe not suspend, but the only time he'll be mentioned by the media will be "When will he drop out?" Basically the same coverage he got before October.

[Solecismic]

He's staying in on the chance the FBI makes a criminal referral. He's going to be so far behind after March 15 that there's no other strong reason.

[ISiddiqui]

Perfect storm for Sanders. 2/3rd black voters in the primary (per the exit polling sample at leaste), and they went roughly 2/3rds Hilary.

Actually black voters went 86-14 for Hillary. That's a beating and a half.

[tarcone]

Im sorry, but how can you gys be so high on HRC? You know she is a liar. You know she is backed by corporations. Is it because she is a dem? Is it bcause she is Bills wife? What is the draw?

[JPhillips]

He's staying in on the chance the FBI makes a criminal referral. He's going to be so far behind after March 15 that there's no other strong reason.

I'll bet anything you like that that won't happen. To do that would mean they'd have to also go after Powell and Rice and God only knows how many other cabinet members/senior advisers. It's a big political problem for Hillary, but it won't be even a hint of a legal problem.

[EagleFan]

Im sorry, but how can you gys be so high on HRC? You know she is a liar. You know she is backed by corporations. Is it because she is a dem? Is it bcause she is Bills wife? What is the draw?

She's exponentially better than Sanders...and I don't like her.

[cuervo72]

Well, nobody else is running, is probably one reason why she's doing well. Either nobody is ready or nobody wanted to cross her.

[tarcone]

As exciting and great as this election is, it sure isnt producing a real candidate.

[flere-imsaho]

Ok, define "real candidate".

[QuikSand]

As I've said before, this tendency Bill Clinton had as President to parse his words carefully and always find a rhetorical "middle ground" has dogged Democrats in general since his Presidency. It's not been helped by the fact that the GOP went in the opposite direction with Rove & Luntz applying actual study to the reaction of the public to specific words, and using those words, in the guise of "plain talk" to hammer the Democrats.

Trump is the end state of this strategy, and Clinton is its anti-thesis. Trump does nothing but "straight talk" (form, not function). Sure, it's often contradictory, meaningless or flat out wrong, but the delivery is what is key and, critically, is what the GOP establishment has been cultivating in their base for the past 20+ years.

On the flipside, the way Clinton (H) speaks is simply a problem. As plenty have noted, when you look at her actual positions, she aligns nicely with most Democrats. But this endless parsing and hedging creates the opposite perception. I would hazard that's part of the reason for Sanders' appeal.

Clinton absolutely needs to change this. Become more clear and more genuine.

agreed here on everything

[QuikSand]

And let's not get all riled up over the "tough primary" situation here. No need to take the bait from the dedicated opposition... but just put yourself into the shoes of a loyal Dem for a minute.

She is a former Secretary of State and US Senator, seen by most within the party (and many beyond) as effective in both roles, and like it or not was a major policy player in a previous Dem administration. She has credentials for the role that very few aspirants possess. I know that this is not major speaking point as we mull over massive issues like the DNC database and the text of paid speeches and who said what in 1986 about guns... but once the party sorts itself out, the country will be reminded that she is an extraordinarily well qualified candidate. (Not merits, just resume)

She would also be the first woman president. Right, I know the luster has come off the diversity argument a good bit since Obama, but do not dismiss this as unimportant. When the Dems get together for their convention, there will be a whole wave of inspiration (both genuine and manufactured) around that point. Making history is exciting... in a "get to the polls" way.

Next...she is smart and articulate. Yes, she has delivery issues and can seem calculating or insincere. But in a debate setup against any of the likely suspects, she is going to be strong, effective, and persuasive on policy. She will be able to talk about "when I was negotiating with [head of state]" and "I worked across the aisle on [legislative issue]" and that stuff is going to stick. She will talk about the supreme court, women's issues, middle class stuff, and a range of relatively inoffensive Dem-friendly topics with absolute ease.

She may not be a perfect candidate, by any stretch. But the selection process is often about the "path to victory" and all that stuff makes a really good case. No party has an easy road to a third term, but she's a much stronger candidate than usual in many regards. In the prediction markets, you can take it to the bank that during the week of the Dem convention, as people gush over her service and dedication and accomplishments, the needle will move toward her as a material favorite in the race.


So... THAT is what Democrats see in her. Even if you don't love her or even like her, you see a solid chance to keep the White House and retain control of administrative policies, judicial appointments, and everything that comes with the Executive Branch. Party loyalists love electability, this isn't anything new.

[tarcone]

Ok, define "real candidate".

A poor use of words by me.

How about no real stand outs.

I dont know. Im just not sure I like what is going to happen to the country in the next 4-8 years, whoever is elected.

Is there anyone out there that could unite the country and the completely fractured houses?

[tarcone]

Nicely said, QuikSand.

Good points.

[Thomkal]

Im sorry, but how can you gys be so high on HRC? You know she is a liar. You know she is backed by corporations. Is it because she is a dem? Is it bcause she is Bills wife? What is the draw?

I think you will find that Dems are not that sold on her either. Basically the only option we were given was Sanders, who is not going to win a general election (see South Carolina as proof). She has the best chance to continue Obama's policies/worldview. Rubio gave a stump speech the other day where he said he would end all of Obama's executive orders on day 1 of his presidency-Cruz has said similar. We had eight years of the Republicans in Congress obstructing Obama's policies, I sure don't want four years of Rubio/Cruz gleefully destroying his legacy. Who the hell knows what Trump will do besides probably get us into a war after he insults one world leader after another. From a personal standpoint, none of the Republican candidates will support gay rights/marriage, and I shudder to think who they would nominate to the Supreme Court. Clinton is the one best suited to prevent all that from happening from the candidates we've been given.

She had so much appeal in the first Obama election because she was (and still is) what I call a "novelty" candidate. Becoming the first woman President of the US still appeals to many, who will vote for her just to say that they did-she got beat by an even bigger novelty candidate with Obama, and has no one standing in her way this time.

[Butter]

"You know she is a liar?"

This is politics we're talking about, right?

[cuervo72]

Nixon had pretty good creds too.

;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is there anyone out there that could unite the country and the completely fractured houses?

No.

But that isn't the fault of the candidates from either party.

[cuervo72]

Eh, might as well throw this in the general D bin.

Why Is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Co-Sponsoring a Bill to Help Predatory Payday Lenders? (http://theslot.jezebel.com/why-is-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-co-sponsoring-1762193449)

[ISiddiqui]

The article mentioned almost all the Democrats who are sponsoring the bill are from Florida... I'm sure if Jezebel actually cared about journalism it may think to see if most payday loan companies are based in FL. After all, there has to be a connection to the state in some way right? And if that is the case, then the Congresspeople are backing their constituents.

[Grammaticus]

The article mentioned almost all the Democrats who are sponsoring the bill are from Florida... I'm sure if Jezebel actually cared about journalism it may think to see if most payday loan companies are based in FL. After all, there has to be a connection to the state in some way right? And if that is the case, then the Congresspeople are backing their constituents.

Which constituents, the lenders or people getting the loans? Or is it both because payday lenders are not bad?

[EagleFan]

And if that is the case, then the Congresspeople are backing their constituents.

You're going on IF? Don't break your back contorting yourself...

[molson]

Congrats if you had Hillary Clinton winning American Samoa on PredictIt.

American Samoa Results Election 2016 - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/american-samoa-results-election-2016/story?id=37193418)

Edit: It's kind of surprising that American Samoa has almost 70% as many delegates as Vermont does.

[Grammaticus]

Congrats if you had Hillary Clinton winning American Samoa on PredictIt.

American Samoa Results Election 2016 - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/american-samoa-results-election-2016/story?id=37193418)

Edit: It's kind of surprising that American Samoa has almost 70% as many delegates as Vermont does.

It's not going to help her much. They cannot vote in national elections. But hey, it sounds good.

[wustin]

It's not going to help her much. They cannot vote in national elections. But hey, it sounds good.

Winning it is better than not winning it?

[nol]

A poor use of words by me.

How about no real stand outs.

I dont know. Im just not sure I like what is going to happen to the country in the next 4-8 years, whoever is elected.

Is there anyone out there that could unite the country and the completely fractured houses?

No, and if there was I'd hope that person would be putting his or her skills towards something more productive than running for public office.

[Grammaticus]

Winning it is better than not winning it?

In the sense that a few people may talk about it instead of ignoring her, sure. But actually making a difference, no it does not matter.

[Solecismic]

Sanders with a fairly substantial win in Oklahoma, though perhaps Oklahomans thought it was Barry Sanders on the ballot.

What's going to hurt is these massive margins for Clinton in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia. That's a lead more positive geography can't erase.

[molson]

In the sense that a few people may talk about it instead of ignoring her, sure. But actually making a difference, no it does not matter.

It doesn't matter for the general election obviously, it's just kind of amusing that several hundred voters in American Samoa can cancel out out much of Sanders' win in Vermont. Not that either are particularly important unless the race turned out to be super-close

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, if Clinton wins MA as reported, it's pretty much over on the D side. The bastion up here didn't hold for Sanders.

[JPhillips]

It's been over since Nevada, but nobody wants to admit it.

[ISiddiqui]

Which constituents, the lenders or people getting the loans? Or is it both because payday lenders are not bad?

Both are constituents. And people generally try to help out the companies that provide jobs in their district - even Bernie Sanders (see favorable regulations he's tried to get on behalf of dairy farmers, which are a sizable constituency in Vermont). It's almost always turns into a cost-benefit analysis. Or, to put it more crudely - welcome to politics.

You're going on IF? Don't break your back contorting yourself...

The alternative being that there is something strange about Democrats in the state of Florida that makes them friendly to payday loan companies. I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here.

[ISiddiqui]

What's going to hurt is these massive margins for Clinton in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia. That's a lead more positive geography can't erase.

Yeah, the delegate math will be difficult for Sanders to erase. As of right now, and granted its still kinda early (though not THAT early), the NYTimes is projecting Clinton getting 335 delegates tonight with Sanders getting 145. That's almost a 200 delegate lead... of course that will shrink as Minnesota and Colorado votes come in more and more as the night continues.

[mauchow]

Bernie declared winner of Mass.

[mauchow]

And now Hillary declared winner of Massachusetts. Lol

[NobodyHere]

Bernie declared winner of Mass.

Who called this? msn.com is saying Hillary won.

[ISiddiqui]

Who called this? msn.com is saying Hillary won.

It seems like a shared datasource had some error. NYTimes apparently had Sanders has winner and then shifted it back to Clinton.

Then again, it only really matters in narrative as the delegates are just about evenly split either way, no?

[stevew]

With the real possibility of a tie happening at 269 each, you'd think an at large territory vote for president would happen.

[flere-imsaho]

538.com has called the nomination for Clinton. Essentially the math simply doesn't work for Sanders anymore. He might get victories, but not by enough to make big delegate scoops in the states he wins. Conversely, Clinton will win more states, and a number of those by a big enough margin to essentially take all of those states' delegates.

[JPhillips]

With the real possibility of a tie happening at 269 each, you'd think an at large territory vote for president would happen.

Due to the large minority population it would almost certainly go to the Dem, so the GOP would never agree to it.

[SackAttack]

Due to the large minority population it would almost certainly go to the Dem, so the GOP would never agree to it.

Not unless they could somehow gin up a Missouri Compromise 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Since this race is, for all intents & purposes, over I'll indulge in a hypothetical

Let's pretend Romney had somehow managed to win four years ago.
I don't believe that would have produced any substantial difference to what we have currently, so leave pretty much everything that Obama has done intact.

What impact would running to replace Romney rather than to succeed Obama have had on this cycle's (D) primary?

I'm thinking largely here of Clinton vs Sanders, though if you feel strongly that it would have had a third major player then I suppose you're entitled to speculate down that path.

[JPhillips]

Let's pretend Romney had somehow managed to win four years ago.
I don't believe that would have produced any substantial difference to what we have currently, so leave pretty much everything that Obama has done intact.


No.

The ACA, tax rates, maybe SS/Medicare, almost certainly Medicaid, climate change regulations, at least would all have looked different at the end of a Romney term.

[digamma]

Since this race is, for all intents & purposes, over I'll indulge in a hypothetical

Let's pretend Romney had somehow managed to win four years ago.
I don't believe that would have produced any substantial difference to what we have currently, so leave pretty much everything that Obama has done intact.

What impact would running to replace Romney rather than to succeed Obama have had on this cycle's (D) primary?

I'm thinking largely here of Clinton vs Sanders, though if you feel strongly that it would have had a third major player then I suppose you're entitled to speculate down that path.

Trump running as a Democrat and advocating:
1. The Friendship Ditch, which we would pay for through the sale of Trump Scout cookies.
2. The creation of a National CathedraMosque-a-gogue to bring all religions to DC.
3. Single payer health care.
4. Free tuition for all to Trump University.
5. Naming Diamond Joe Biden Imperial Vice President for Life.

[Solecismic]

Trump running as a Democrat and advocating:
1. The Friendship Ditch, which we would pay for through the sale of Trump Scout cookies.
2. The creation of a National CathedraMosque-a-gogue to bring all religions to DC.
3. Single payer health care.
4. Free tuition for all to Trump University.
5. Naming Diamond Joe Biden Imperial Vice President for Life.

I don't know. If he goes this far to the right, how is he going to survive a primary challenge from Kanye in 2020?

[cartman]

None of them would be able to beat Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho in the general election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No.

The ACA, tax rates, maybe SS/Medicare, almost certainly Medicaid, climate change regulations, at least would all have looked different at the end of a Romney term.

See I don't believe that. He's a surrender monkey looking for an opportunity to cave in. A percentage point here or there does not qualify as "substantial change" to me.

There's only one single issue (abortion) where I think he has any determination whatsoever, ironically the one place where I have a complete disagreement him.

[JPhillips]

ll he would have had to do is sign what was put before him. No way he vetoes bill after bill passed by a GOP legislature.

[flere-imsaho]

What impact would running to replace Romney rather than to succeed Obama have had on this cycle's (D) primary?

I'm thinking largely here of Clinton vs Sanders, though if you feel strongly that it would have had a third major player then I suppose you're entitled to speculate down that path.

I'd guess Clinton and Biden would have been the big candidates, but if we assume that Romney spent 4 years rubber-stamping the GOP's legislation doing everything JPhillips lists, the tone of the race would likely have been much different. More "Let's decide on the best candidate, ASAP, to turf out Romney and stop the bleeding."

See I don't believe that. He's a surrender monkey looking for an opportunity to cave in. A percentage point here or there does not qualify as "substantial change" to me.

ll he would have had to do is sign what was put before him. No way he vetoes bill after bill passed by a GOP legislature.

Exactly. It's not as if they didn't try to pass this stuff (or, more specifically, repeal it) during Obama's 2nd term anyway. Maybe the Democrats mount a successful filibuster in the Senate, but a lot of stuff gets wiped out.

Unless you're somehow suggesting, Jon, that Romney would actively defend Obama's 1st term achievements?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Unless you're somehow suggesting, Jon, that Romney would actively defend Obama's 1st term achievements?

At that point they aren't Obama's 1st term "achievements", they're Romney's.

I don't believe there's a dime's worth of difference in the two people or their approaches to most topics. Remember, I saw the pair as being similar enough that I refused to vote for either four years ago. Given my feelings about one, that speaks strongly about my feelings for the other.

[flere-imsaho]

OK, I see what you're saying. I disagree, of course.

As you yourself point out, Romney will give in to prevailing winds, it seems to me that the most likely scenario still would have been his rubber-stamping of the bills coming out of a Republican Congress, which I assume would be mostly in the service of dismantling what passed in Obama's first term.

[flere-imsaho]

Clinton's Twitter account is amusing:

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "How many more of these do we have to sit through? Asking for a friend. #GOPdebate https://t.co/AxGFlerSRW" (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/705603574575706112)

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "#GOPdebate https://t.co/SGW200luN8" (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/705579415510634496)

[Dutch]

Clinton's Twitter account is amusing:

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "How many more of these do we have to sit through? Asking for a friend. #GOPdebate https://t.co/AxGFlerSRW" (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/705603574575706112)

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "#GOPdebate https://t.co/SGW200luN8" (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/705579415510634496)

Twitter....not CNN...not FoxNews...Twitter...I'm not talking about CNN...I'm talking about Twitter....folks....not FoxNews....Twitter....how's Twitter gonna make my teammates play better???

[albionmoonlight]

I think Lincoln would have had the best Twitter.

[Dutch]

I think Lincoln would have had the best Twitter.

He did...as far as I'm concerned. :)

[nol]

Twitter....not CNN...not FoxNews...Twitter...I'm not talking about CNN...I'm talking about Twitter....folks....not FoxNews....Twitter....how's Twitter gonna make my teammates play better???

For someone who likes to post the same conservative Facebook memes that I see from my hometown's high school dropouts, you sure seem to enjoy this bagging on social media schtick.