2015-2016 Democratic Primary Season - Bernie Math

[Solecismic]

I thought we could use items dedicated to the primary issues. Candidacies, polls, issues, attitudes.

As always, let's try to keep these items pleasant.

Candidates so far...

Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, former Senator from New York, former Secretary of State.

Bernie Sanders, former Mayor of Burlington, former Congressman from Vermont, current Senator from Vermont, independent, but has an agreement with the Democrats to caucus in return for tenure/committee membership.

Joe Biden, former Senator from Delaware, current Vice President, decided not to run, 10/21/2015.

Martin O'Malley, former Mayor of Baltimore, former Governor of Maryland, apparent inspiration for The Wire. Withdrew on 2/1/16.

Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, former Senator from Virginia, withdrew on 10/20/2015.

Lincoln Chafee, former Senator from Rhode Island, former Governor of Rhode Island, Republican as a senator, independent as a governor, now Democrat, withdrew on 10/23/2015.

The first debate was on 10/13/2015 in Las Vegas on CNN.

The second debate was on 11/15/2015 in Des Moines, Iowa on CBS.

The third debate was on 12/19/2015 in Goffstown, NH, on ABC.

The fourth debate was on 1/17/2016 in Charleston, SC on NBC.

The fifth debate was on 2/11/2016 in Milwaukee on PBS.

The sixth debate is scheduled for 3/6/2016 in Flint, MI on CNN.

Polling indicates Sanders has made up enormous ground in recent weeks and may be pretty much tied nationally.

Clinton has an overwhelming lead in pledged superdelegates, but pledges are not binding, as Clinton found out eight years ago.

The Iowa Caucus was on February 1, and was pretty much a dead heat between Clinton and Sanders, Clinton winning by four state delegates.

Sanders won the New Hampshire Primary on February 9 by more than 20 points.

Clinton won the Nevada Caucus on February 20 by a small margin.

[BillJasper]

I have a feeling that Clinton gets beat by the Republican nominee, so long as they run a moderate.

[Grover]

C'mon Bernie.

[ISiddiqui]

Republican nominee, so long as they run a moderate.

:lol:

[BillJasper]

:lol:

I agree it is a huge if. But I could see Jeb Bush beating her.

[ISiddiqui]

So, Suffolk actually did a New Hampshire GOP Presidential Primary poll that came out today. Jeb Bush wins with 14%, but who is that right behind him.... none other than the Donald! Trump had 11% in the Suffolk poll.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal did some hypo Presidential matchups and contrary to any thought of moderates doing well against Hillary, Hillary has a 8 point lead over Jeb Bush (in addition to a 14 point lead over Scott Walker and 10 point lead over Marco Rubio).

[ISiddiqui]

I agree it is a huge if. But I could see Jeb Bush beating her.

As of right now, Clinton has an average of 5.3 lead over Bush in the polls:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Bush vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html)

I don't really see Bush making it up on her, especially not after some of his recent flubs.

[JPhillips]

Bush has a lot of money behind him and that can't be discounted, but he doesn't generate much passion. Who would be excited by a Bush victory?

[Solecismic]

My sense from the media is that they're ABH (anyone but Hillary). They want Sanders, but know it's a tough sell in the General. O'Malley is well positioned, as Biden would be if he weren't Saturday Night Lived as the ill-tempered guy who makes constant gaffes.

In the end, my guess is that Hillary prevails and the media reluctantly learns to love her again. But O'Malley may surprise us.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed... he (Jeb) seems Romney-esque that way. I also think in the battle of the last names for more independent types will be frightened by another Bush than another Clinton (if you think about how those Presidencies ended... which is slightly unfair for GHW Bush, but there it is).

[JPhillips]

I think the Baltimore riots weigh down O'Malley. He's going to have a hard time explaining some of his past actions to the Dem base.

[Chief Rum]

Just what we need, another potential Bush versus Clinton election, only with candidates even less inspiring than the first time.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the Baltimore riots weigh down O'Malley. He's going to have a hard time explaining some of his past actions to the Dem base.

Yeah.. it's almost killed him off, I think. Not a single Dem I know (granted not a massive sample size) thinks well of O'Malley after Baltimore.

[JPhillips]

Just what we need, another potential Bush versus Clinton election, only with candidates even less inspiring than the first time.

Yeah, we have the potential to have a Bush or Clinton for 28 out of 36 years. Not quite a monarchy, but...

[Solecismic]

I think the Baltimore riots weigh down O'Malley. He's going to have a hard time explaining some of his past actions to the Dem base.

He's not running for office in Maryland. And he won't spend any time in Maryland, because it's a solid blue state and its primary is well after Super Tuesday. If he gains traction, he's viable. People will forget, or want to forget.

Same reason why Biden still polls at 10% even though he's not announced and he's not all that popular. Elizabeth Warren would rocket to 30% tomorrow if she were interested. The Democrats need another candidate or two right now.

[Dutch]

President Hillary and First Lady Bill. Case closed.

[path12]

I've admired Bernie for a long time but cannot conceive of a scenario where he gets the nod.

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah, we have the potential to have a Bush or Clinton for 28 out of 36 years. Not quite a monarchy, but...

Random trivia. I was born in Summer 1976. 2008 was the first election in my life in which the GOP ticket did not contain a Dole or a Bush.

Powerful families tend to stay powerful.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

And a super early guess just for the hell of it in case I am right. I will predict the tickets as

Clinton/Webb
Rubio/Walker

And I think I agree with Nate Silver that, based on all the fundamentals, it really is a 50/50 race right now.

[RainMaker]

Am I wrong in thinking that no one stands a chance against Clinton in the primary? There doesn't seem to be any up and coming star who could derail her.

Has there been any talk of Cuomo running?

[JPhillips]

Am I wrong in thinking that no one stands a chance against Clinton in the primary? There doesn't seem to be any up and coming star who could derail her.

Has there been any talk of Cuomo running?

She'll only have trouble if she hires Mark Penn again.

Cuomo would stand zero chance in this primary. The base hates him and his constituency is basically the same as Clinton's. He'll bide his time or be like his father and never run.

[tarcone]

Why is Clinton the huge favorite? Do the Dems think it will be Bill 2? Or is she that great a leader? Or is it the lack of other viable candidates?

[ISiddiqui]

Well, us Dems are looking for someone a bit more progressive than Bill ;). And Hillary has been - she was the head of the left faction in the WH during the Bill era, and has explicitly repudiated some of the Bill policies. A lot of us like her resume as well. And we're convinced she'll actually fight unlike President Obama for the first 6 years of his administration (or at least push back more).

Oh, and a good deal of us voted for her in the 2008 Primaries and have been waiting for this day for 7 years now.

[Ryche]

Really want to see Webb get into the race, he's the one candidate from either side that I would be happy to vote for at this point.

[SackAttack]

Bernie Sanders strikes me as a better challenger from the left to Clinton than Liz Warren. He's old enough that if he leaves the Senate, he's probably not leaving 20 or 30 years of work on the table, so he can champion liberal causes without materially harming their ability to pass the Senate. Liz Warren serves Democratic/liberal ideals best right where she is, as a potential lioness of the Senate.

Also, part of me just wants him to get the nomination so Republican heads can explode when they see what a socialist ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.

I'm not super enthused with Clinton, but the Republicans I'd vote for would never escape the primary. I'd LIKE to see Jim Webb get the nod, but I'd settle for Webb as a #2. If he'd take the job, which I'm not at all certain he would.

[stevew]

As long as Sanders can avoid peaking too soon, I really believe in his chances. He'll likely be able to murder Hilary in a debate and the Clintons bring all kinds of baggage. He is going to need to appear virile though as age is obviously a major issue to his detriment.

[Edward64]

Had to look it up.

Bernie is 73
Hillary is 67
Biden is 72
O'Malley is 52

Reagan was 69 when elected. It's probably makeup but Hillary and Biden look better than Bernie.

[Dutch]

Also, part of me just wants him to get the nomination so Republican heads can explode when they see what a socialist ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.



Weren't you mad about this in the other thread?

If you gaze too long into the abyss...

[SackAttack]

Weren't you mad about this in the other thread?

If you gaze too long into the abyss...

What does "what a socialist actually looks like" have to do with my distaste for Scott Walker?

...are you suggesting Scott Walker is actually a socialist and that WI Republicans have been hoodwinked?

[Dutch]

No, I was remembering these lines.

Likewise, I didn't say Republicans are mouth-breathers or that conservatives are mouth-breathers. I said that people who judge the quality of a politician first or mainly on whether he "pisses off the Democrat Party" fall into that camp. Because supporting a candidate on that basis is explicitly not about values. That's about straight up being willing to be an asshole to other people if it pisses off people whose politics you don't like.

[Dutch]

I should preface that by saying I dont really care...just sounded awfully similar. :)

[kcchief19]

Why is Clinton the huge favorite? Do the Dems think it will be Bill 2? Or is she that great a leader? Or is it the lack of other viable candidates?
I think there are a few reasons. Bill is certainly one. I think a lot of rank-and-file Dems would view a Hillary presidency as Bill's third term, and after the last 16 years Dems would love to revive the Clinton Era. She's also extremely smart. I think she's just as smart as Bill, although Bill is much more suave and politically savvy. There are many people who would like to see a woman president, and no one is more qualified or capable than Hillary right now. Democrats also want to win, and they think she can win.

Hillary ran a great general election campaign in the 2008 primary. Hillary would have beat McCain by even more than Obama did. She just ran a horrible primary campaign. She ran to the middle too early in the primary campaign and let Obama position himself as the anti-Bush when Democrats wanted exactly that.

I don't think Hillary is a master campaigner or politician. She still has a bit too much "get the job done" approach rather than doing things the politically correct way. Hillary's potential biggest opponent in the primary season is herself.

[claphamsa]

Hillary has the Clinton machine behind her... and after citizens united money is #1, #2 and #3. It would take an Obama level personality to beat the money...and there isnt one.

[kcchief19]

dola:

And a super early guess just for the hell of it in case I am right. I will predict the tickets as

Clinton/Webb
Rubio/Walker

And I think I agree with Nate Silver that, based on all the fundamentals, it really is a 50/50 race right now.
I hate guessing this far out but I'll take a WAG too just in case I'm right.

Clinton/Castro
Bush/Kasich

If Clinton's the nominee, she needs someone different from her. If she's running against someone from Florida, she needs someone who helps here there. Julian Castro ticks off a lot of boxes. Helps that he's smart and a Democrat in a red state. Granted, he's never really had to win a race in deep red area, but he could certainly help make Florida a race and at least make the GOP spend resources in Texas. If Rubio is not on the GOP, having the first Hispanic on a presidential ticket would be a huge legacy for Clinton and the party.

My gut right now says it's a Bush-Walker race. I think those two guys are going to suck up too much money for Rubio and others to make it a race. Walker is actually better positioned to win a primary, but I think Bush will make it a question as the whether he's presidential and electable. Given that I think Bush and Walker are going to go at each other, will make it hard to put him on the ticket. If Bush is the nominee, I think Kasich is a no-brainer from an electoral college perspective. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida -- a Democrat absolutely must win 2 of the 3 to win the White House right now. The GOP could tilt the board in a big way with a Florida/Ohio ticket.

[kcchief19]

My sense from the media is that they're ABH (anyone but Hillary). They want Sanders, but know it's a tough sell in the General. O'Malley is well positioned, as Biden would be if he weren't Saturday Night Lived as the ill-tempered guy who makes constant gaffes.

In the end, my guess is that Hillary prevails and the media reluctantly learns to love her again. But O'Malley may surprise us.
If there is a media bias, it's towards a good stor;y. A Hillary coronation isn't a good story. They need conflict. The media would love to see a contentious Democratic race regardless of who is running. That's why you're getting people actually pretending Bernie Sanders is a qualified candidate -- it makes for an interesting story.

I may change my opinion if and when we see more of him, but my impression is that O'Malley may be the dullest Democrat in modern times. He's more stiff than Gore on his stiffest day. He may be smart, but he always sounds like he's struggling to articulate what he's saying.

I think the only other Democrat with the star power to take on Hillary is Liz Warren. I still don't think she's 100% polished and I think she's a bit too lefty to win a general election, but she would give Hillary fits just like Obama did.

[JPhillips]

I think there are a few reasons. Bill is certainly one. I think a lot of rank-and-file Dems would view a Hillary presidency as Bill's third term, and after the last 16 years Dems would love to revive the Clinton Era. She's also extremely smart. I think she's just as smart as Bill, although Bill is much more suave and politically savvy. There are many people who would like to see a woman president, and no one is more qualified or capable than Hillary right now. Democrats also want to win, and they think she can win.

Hillary ran a great general election campaign in the 2008 primary. Hillary would have beat McCain by even more than Obama did. She just ran a horrible primary campaign. She ran to the middle too early in the primary campaign and let Obama position himself as the anti-Bush when Democrats wanted exactly that.

I don't think Hillary is a master campaigner or politician. She still has a bit too much "get the job done" approach rather than doing things the politically correct way. Hillary's potential biggest opponent in the primary season is herself.

And Mark Penn had no idea how caucuses worked.

[SackAttack]

Ah. Nah. You misunderstand. What I'm saying is I remember 2008 when people were losing their fucking minds over a black Democrat running for the Presidency and were throwing all kinds of stupid shit at him. HE'S A SECRET MUSLIM HE'S A SOCIALIST HE WASN'T BORN IN THIS COUNTRY AND HE'S PROBABLY SLEEPING WITH YOUR DAUGHTER

All of that over a guy who's been socially left on a couple issues, but has generally governed closer to right-of-center.

Bernie Sanders is an actual, literal socialist. He prefers the term "democratic socialist," but that's pedantry. He's a socialist. Barack Obama was only ever a socialist in the minds of people who wanted to tear him down but were concerned enough about looking socially respectable that they didn't say what they REALLY thought of him. So they cast about for other epithets.

So when I say "Also, part of me just wants him to get the nomination so Republican heads can explode when they see what a socialist ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE" that isn't about "pissing off Republicans." If THAT'S all I wanted Hillary Clinton would do just fine, and she's not particularly liberal.

This is less about "I want the guy who pisses off Republicans" (Bernie's not my first choice for the Democratic nominee and may not be the second) and more about "how would Republicans respond to a living, breathing socialist after the vitriol they hurled as a dog whistle for 'not the black guy'?"

Which isn't at all the same thing as "he pisses off [ideologues I don't like] so he'd probably be good at Presidentin'."

[Apathetic Lurker]

I have a feeling that Clinton gets beat by the Republican nominee, so long as they run a moderate.

A moderate ? Where ?

[Izulde]

I think Sanders wins if he gets the nomination. There are even Republicans who have said they'd vote for him in the general. He's doing a great job of addressing the middle and working classes, and framing this election in terms of economics and class warfare, IMO, and that's resonating with the anti-1% feeling in the country right now.

Edit: A lot of people also say he's the first politician they've actually believed the things that he's saying, and that honesty has a lot to do with his broad support, IMO.

[Ryche]

Jim Webb is officially in. Will be interesting to see if he can gain any traction, definitely hoping he can.

[bronconick]

Jim Webb is officially in. Will be interesting to see if he can gain any traction, definitely hoping he can.


Didn't he decide against running for re-election in the Senate because he hates campaigning? How is this going to work?

[ISiddiqui]

He's going to do the Fred Thompson and hope it works this time ;).

[JPhillips]

Didn't he decide against running for re-election in the Senate because he hates campaigning? How is this going to work?

Yes.

But given his recent statements on the confederate flag it may be better to keep silent rather than campaign.

[Ryche]

Yes.

But given his recent statements on the confederate flag it may be better to keep silent rather than campaign.

I don't know, his response seemed pretty appropriate for a historian with southern roots.

[Izulde]

I find it funny how at first people were saying Bernie has no chance whatsoever, and now they're saying he can win Iowa and New Hampshire, but has no shot at the nomination.

I mean, I get the reasons they're putting out there for that, but I'm just over here like, "He's building up momentum at a really fast rate, and if he does win Iowa and New Hampshire, national awareness of and interest in him will increase."

It seems as though people (and the media) are misunderstanding just how strongly his honesty and pro-middle class stances are resonating with voters all along the political spectrum. Frankly, I think he's more electable than Hillary.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL!

Sorry, that just makes me laugh. People are pushing up Bernie because they want a narrative in the Democratic primaries (I think the latest poll in Iowa had Hillary up by 30). That's really it.

[Izulde]

LOL!

Sorry, that just makes me laugh. People are pushing up Bernie because they want a narrative in the Democratic primaries (I think the latest poll in Iowa had Hillary up by 30). That's really it.

Evenn 538 says Bernie can win Iowa and New Hampshire.

[ISiddiqui]

Did you just read the headline or the actual article ;). The "could" was, well Sanders is at 30% in Iowa and 32% in New Hampshire... he "could" win. He just has to make up 20 points.

[bhlloy]

We might as well get it over with and have Sanders vs Trump. I wonder if that would be more likely to end up with a civil war or a viable third party candidate?

[NobodyHere]

LOL!

Sorry, that just makes me laugh. People are pushing up Bernie because they want a narrative in the Democratic primaries (I think the latest poll in Iowa had Hillary up by 30). That's really it.

People are pushing Bernie because he comes across as a person of integrity versus Clinton who is seen as a machine politician.

[ISiddiqui]

People are pushing Bernie because he comes across as a person of integrity versus Clinton who is seen as a machine politician.

You know who was a person of integrity? Jimmy Carter. Yeah.

Anyways, I'm reading through the methodology for CNN's poll on 6/30 and I find it incredibly fascinating. One of the things that sticks out, is that it seems Sanders's base is rich white liberals.

Sanders's support among whites is 19%, but only 9% among non-whites. His support among people making over $50k is 19%, but only 11% for those making under $50. His support among liberals is 27%, but only 7% among moderates. And interestingly (probably based on his lack of non-white support) his support among suburban voters is 17%, but 11% for urban.

[JPhillips]

I'd bet a lot of that has to do with name recognition. If you live in Chicago or Dallas or pick your city, and you aren't really engaged in politics, have you even heard of Sanders?

[ISiddiqui]

I'd actually wager, to be honest, it has to do with that liberal/moderate thing. African-Americans tend to be more conservative (esp on social issues) than most white liberals. Same applies for those making under $50k vs. those making over $50k.

[JPhillips]

I'm sure it's a combination, but I'm struck every election by how few people actually pay attention to what's going on. Elections are decided by people that choose their favorite beer buddy 24 hours before going to the polls.

[ISiddiqui]

Which, of course, ends up being a factor of money in the end (who can plaster ads) ;).

[Grover]

I was in Portland on Monday night for Bernie's rally. I've never seen the civic center so full and I have never in my life seen so much enthusiasm for one person.

[bob]

This blows my mind.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-lives-matter/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.

[Dutch]

I didn't think any Democratics would behave like that. Strange coalition, that. :)

[Izulde]

This blows my mind.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-lives-matter/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.

As well they should have shouted him down, TBH.

While on the surface it seems confusing, when you look at what's actually going on, it makes perfect sense.

You see, when you have a particular issue like this, where you're trying to call attention to a group that is disadvantaged in some way, when you say something like, "But what about X?!", it repositions the conversation and negates the original argument and focus. It also makes the What about X person look like a pedantic asshole who is patronizing the people discussing the primary issue.

In this case, it's taking the conversation about police brutality towards African-Americans, which is a specifically focused issue, and diffusing it towards a general all lives matter. While all lives matter is a true statement, by uttering it, you've now moved attention from this very spotlighted issue to a generic conversation about police brutality, which ignores the multiplicity of unique factors that are involved in African-American and police relations that lead to a disproportionate amount of law enforcement brutality visited upon blacks.

Similarly, a couple weeks ago, I was in a Facebook conversation discussing a political cartoon where Hillary Clinton was criticized for her looks. The original poster, who was in my high school graduating class and is now a tenure track sociology professor at Notre Dame, pointed out that while disagreeing with Hillary on the issues was certainly fair, attacking her appearance was a gendered thing - one that very rarely happened to male politicians, but often does to female politicians.

In swaggers a guy who says, "I think this should be extended to ALL people being criticized for their physical appearance. Women should not get a special pass on this."

Real patronizing and MRA style, right? I pointed out that American society is constructed around the notion that the primary currency of a woman is her appearance.

He blusters his way against that, gets shot down by pretty much everyone, and the original poster remarks, "In principle I think everyone is on board with a universal protection. But that obscures the documentable fact that women are subjected to job irrelevant physical commentary at much greater rates than men. It's not to say men are never subject to it, or that when they are that they shouldn't be defended. They should. But there is not a systematic problem on the same scale as there are for women."

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I wanted to try (I just woke up, so not very coherent yet ;) to clarify why the protesters did what they did.

[NobodyHere]

Males are never attacked for their appearance? Nobody has ever said anything about Chris Christie's weight or Donald Trump's hair?

[nol]

Males are never attacked for their appearance? Nobody has ever said anything about Chris Christie's weight or Donald Trump's hair?

And what's the deal with Relay for Life? Don't they know that people die from other diseases besides cancer?

[Izulde]

Males are never attacked for their appearance? Nobody has ever said anything about Chris Christie's weight or Donald Trump's hair?

Very rarely != never

And the OP did acknowledge that Donald Trump's combover was essentially equivalent. As for Christie's weight, which also came up, OP pointed out that they were talking mainly about job irrelevant criticisms of appearance. And with Christie's weight, possible health issues that could impact Presidential duties come into play, so that at least has some job relevancy merits (to what degree is certainly debatable, of course).

[Tigercat]

In this case, it's taking the conversation about police brutality towards African-Americans, which is a specifically focused issue, and diffusing it towards a general all lives matter. While all lives matter is a true statement, by uttering it, you've now moved attention from this very spotlighted issue to a generic conversation about police brutality, which ignores the multiplicity of unique factors that are involved in African-American and police relations that lead to a disproportionate amount of law enforcement brutality visited upon blacks.

But isn't a generic conversation about police brutality absolutely the conversation we should be having in the sphere of politics? It is the conversation that can get the most accomplished and save the most lives.

For example, let us say over night with a wave of the wand we can get all police forces to be extra cognoscente of how they treat African-Americans. Do we honestly think the police officers with the worst attitudes and with the worst training still wouldn't find a way to screw up and get people they can't relate to killed? It will just be Hispanics, or young people who aren't black who don't act a certain way, or anyone that they deem as trouble from the get-go. So how about instead of an African-American-centric campaign we train police officers to see that their instinct should be that all lives in front of them matter, regardless if that person is African-American, Hispanic, a disrespectful youth, etc.

This was never a race only problem, although African-Americans absolutely get the worst of it. To address the situation by only focusing on "black lives matter," or by not letting those in power focus on police brutality as a whole, keeps real permanent change from happening. That way of thinking essentially says that other minorities and groups treated poorly by police officers don't matter.

[RainMaker]

This blows my mind.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-lives-matter/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.

One of those articles you read and wonder if it's The Onion.

[ISiddiqui]

While on the surface it seems confusing, when you look at what's actually going on, it makes perfect sense.

You see, when you have a particular issue like this, where you're trying to call attention to a group that is disadvantaged in some way, when you say something like, "But what about X?!", it repositions the conversation and negates the original argument and focus. It also makes the What about X person look like a pedantic asshole who is patronizing the people discussing the primary issue.

Exactly. It's kind of like the #NotAllMen stuff.

And the other interesting thing about that forum is that it wasn't just O'Malley who got shouted down. Bernie Sanders got savaged as well:

Activists disrupt forum featuring candidates O’Malley, Sanders - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/activists-disrupt-forum-featuring-candidates-omalley-sanders/2015/07/18/ca64eb34-2d60-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html?wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1)

It seems that both Sanders and O'Malley aren't all that experienced in dealing with minority issues (Sanders in particular seems to speak of those issues solely in terms of income inequality). That'll kill both of them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This was never a race only problem

Nope.

It's a behavior problem ... and worse than useless idiots like these protestors aren't willing to accept that, taking responsibility for the behaviors that create the pseudo-"brutality' problem is the last thing you'll see from that sort of vermin. And it's the last thing you'll see from them regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

The problem isn't race and it isn't police.

[Tigercat]

Exactly. It's kind of like the #NotAllMen stuff.


Completely disagree. In my mind it is nothing like that. NotAllMen was a response to yesallwomen, so it was the privileged class in the discussion making the conversation about them. The real equivalent would be saying "Police Lives Matter."

Saying all lives matter is to say that there is an unprivileged class that goes beyond African-Americans, that it should be our goal to protect lives of all our citizens first and foremost. Is it OK when a unarmed Latino is gunned down in Texas? When an elderly Indian man is nearly killed in a white Alabama suburb for taking a walk? When any kid's life is put at risk by a police officer because of their attire or because they are too young and stupid to know how to properly act?

Just because it is an issue that affects African-Americans dis-proportionally, doesn't mean it is only an African-American issue, and it shouldn't be treated as such politically. Even shrewd Hillary got "caught" saying all lives matter and had to correct herself, because they all know that is what they should be saying.

[ISiddiqui]

That only makes sense if O'Malley said: Black Lives Matter, Latino Lives Matter, Indian Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. He didn't. He said Black Lives Matter, White Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. The All Lives Matter movement is basically based on the same notion of the privileged calls making the conversation about them.

[Tigercat]

That only makes sense if O'Malley said: Black Lives Matter, Latino Lives Matter, Indian Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. He didn't.

Political misstep, because that is exactly what he should have said and probably wanted to say.

The All Lives Matter movement is basically based on the same notion of the privileged calls making the conversation about them.

That makes no sense from the Democratic candidate perspective. Even from a cynical standpoint, it makes more sense for O'Malley (or Sanders or Clinton) to cater to minority protectionism than worrying about including "white" in their speeches.

All lives matter as used by Democratic candidates is a notion that more people need protection than just African-Americans. (Although they certainly need more of it against police brutality and negligence.) Again, protecting the privileged class in this debate would be saying "Police Lives Matter."

[Chief Rum]

As well they should have shouted him down, TBH.

While on the surface it seems confusing, when you look at what's actually going on, it makes perfect sense.

You see, when you have a particular issue like this, where you're trying to call attention to a group that is disadvantaged in some way, when you say something like, "But what about X?!", it repositions the conversation and negates the original argument and focus. It also makes the What about X person look like a pedantic asshole who is patronizing the people discussing the primary issue.

In this case, it's taking the conversation about police brutality towards African-Americans, which is a specifically focused issue, and diffusing it towards a general all lives matter. While all lives matter is a true statement, by uttering it, you've now moved attention from this very spotlighted issue to a generic conversation about police brutality, which ignores the multiplicity of unique factors that are involved in African-American and police relations that lead to a disproportionate amount of law enforcement brutality visited upon blacks.

Similarly, a couple weeks ago, I was in a Facebook conversation discussing a political cartoon where Hillary Clinton was criticized for her looks. The original poster, who was in my high school graduating class and is now a tenure track sociology professor at Notre Dame, pointed out that while disagreeing with Hillary on the issues was certainly fair, attacking her appearance was a gendered thing - one that very rarely happened to male politicians, but often does to female politicians.

In swaggers a guy who says, "I think this should be extended to ALL people being criticized for their physical appearance. Women should not get a special pass on this."

Real patronizing and MRA style, right? I pointed out that American society is constructed around the notion that the primary currency of a woman is her appearance.

He blusters his way against that, gets shot down by pretty much everyone, and the original poster remarks, "In principle I think everyone is on board with a universal protection. But that obscures the documentable fact that women are subjected to job irrelevant physical commentary at much greater rates than men. It's not to say men are never subject to it, or that when they are that they shouldn't be defended. They should. But there is not a systematic problem on the same scale as there are for women."

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I wanted to try (I just woke up, so not very coherent yet ;) to clarify why the protesters did what they did.

Thanks for reminding me why I am not a Democrat lol (not that the Pubs are really giving me much reason to stick around...).

[Butter]

Oh, good, the Democratic Primary thread is turning into just Republicans who literally can't help themselves.

[Solecismic]

Since I don't have super mod powers (except in the subforum where everyone plays TCY2), I just want to give everyone a friendly reminder that I'd like these primary threads not to go the same way every other political thread goes.

We all have our hot-button issues. And we all feel relatively passionately that America would be a better place if everyone agreed with us on those issues. But we don't. And sometimes that makes us divide ourselves into red and blue, because that's a simple way to look at things and our elected officials are, if nothing else, prone to campaign based on simple, digestible concepts.

But when we complain about the lack of quality in our candidates (and there are more than 20 on the two teams now), we're really complaining about ourselves, because this partisan b.s. gives rise to a system where the only qualification is catering to one team and really pissing off the other team.

It's been 14 1/2 years since we've had a president who gave a damn about working with the other team. I think we've forgotten what governing is about and all we do is proclaim our politics. I'm guilty of that, too, even though I'm about equally split on my feelings regarding hot-button issues important to D's and R's.

[JPhillips]

It's been 14 1/2 years since we've had a president who gave a damn about working with the other team.

I'm so old I remember when Obama spent most of his 60 vote period trying to negotiate a bipartisan solution to everything.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL :D

[Izulde]

Read a satirical article today, of which my favorite line was regarding O'Malley "Weaknesses: He's Tommy Carcetti from The Wire." I know that's a comparison lots of other folks have made, but I still laugh every time I see it.

[Solecismic]

Age will be a topic in the 2016 campaign. Our oldest president at accession was Reagan, at 69.

The Democrats have had, in their history, the following elected first-time ascendants:

Obama 47, Clinton 46, Carter 52, Kennedy 43, Roosevelt 51, Wilson 56, Cleveland 47, Buchanan 65, Pierce 48, Polk 49, Van Buren 54, Jackson 61.

In other words, the last time we elected a new Democrat president over the age of 56 was before Lincoln.

Today's candidates and their ages on 1/20/17:

Chafee 63, Clinton 69, O'Malley 54, Sanders 75, Webb 70.

Since Clinton has a huge lead, but seems very vulnerable in the general, party leadership is trying to draft Joe Biden, who would be 74 at his inauguration.

Is this a problem for a party that has relied on new voters so heavily in recent years?

Or has the internet age simply guaranteed that anyone under the age of 60 who knows how to use a computer has so many skeletons that running for president is impossible?

Is this (yet another) reason the Republicans should find a way to get rid of their current 70-year-old front-runner?

[NobodyHere]

So where are those Democratic debates at?

[Dutch]

They already had them...internally...the party decided for you!

[albionmoonlight]

As a solid Democrat, I am not feeling good about this upcoming election.

We're getting Clinton because . . .

And from what I can tell, the Democrats's strategy in the general is some combination of Trump will run as a third party and old white people keep dying and Hispanic people keep breeding. So we will win!

So our nominee is our nominee because she's our nominee. And she will win the general because of large-scale demographic trends independent of the actual campaigns.

That doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker.

[Butter]

As a solid Democrat, I am not feeling good about this upcoming election.

We're getting Clinton because . . .

And from what I can tell, the Democrats's strategy in the general is some combination of Trump will run as a third party and old white people keep dying and Hispanic people keep breeding. So we will win!

So our nominee is our nominee because she's our nominee. And she will win the general because of large-scale demographic trends independent of the actual campaigns.

That doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker.

Well, I'd rather depend on this than widespread voter suppression efforts. I think that's a worse bumper sticker.

[ISiddiqui]

To be honest, I think people downplay the level of excitement beyond Clinton. I mean, I guess in some ways I have a small sample size because I hang out with rabid Hillary supporters (and folks working on the campaign), but I've heard "I've been waiting to vote for Hillary for 8 years" quite a bit.

She's also doing quite a fantastic job on social media.

I also think she'll do very well in the general as well. I think Rubio or Bush would make it close, but anyone else and she'd sweep the floor with them.

The Dem strategy (so far) appears to be focusing on income, racial, and gender inequalities and how the GOP doesn't seem to give a shit about any of that.

[JPhillips]

As a solid Democrat, I am not feeling good about this upcoming election.

We're getting Clinton because . . .

And from what I can tell, the Democrats's strategy in the general is some combination of Trump will run as a third party and old white people keep dying and Hispanic people keep breeding. So we will win!

So our nominee is our nominee because she's our nominee. And she will win the general because of large-scale demographic trends independent of the actual campaigns.

That doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker.

If we get Clinton, it's because people voted for her. If we don't it's because people voted for someone else.

That's one thing that bugs me when people talk about candidates. The party doesn't pick a poor candidate, the voters do.

[JPhillips]

So where are those Democratic debates at?

I think there's a schedule of six debates planned. Google would tell you.

[Grover]

#feelthebern

[Dutch]

I think there's a schedule of six debates planned. Google would tell you.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Chafee_Circle.png/130px-Chafee_Circle.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Clinton_Circle.png/130px-Clinton_Circle.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/O%27Malley_Circle.png/130px-O%27Malley_Circle.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Sanders_Circle.png/130px-Sanders_Circle.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Webb_Circle.png/130px-Webb_Circle.png

Ah, there they are!

[Butter]

I kinda want the comedy Joe Biden option, sort of like how the GOP has Trump.

[Solecismic]

I wonder about the primaries, but none other than Half Pint herself has announced she will be running for Congress in my district (though I probably won't be living here anymore when it comes time for the General).

Her husband (Timothy Busfield, from West Wing) has ties to Michigan. They moved to a small town called Howell a few years ago. They've become involved in local politics to some degree, but haven't held office. She made some news last year when she promised that she and Busfield would build a new theater for the area - but only if incumbent Governor Rick Snyder was defeated. He wasn't. No new theater.

They are leaving Howell soon, but to a log cabin they're building off in the country somewhere near here.

So, it will be interesting to see if Melissa Gilbert can contend for this seat. It's Mike Rogers' old seat. Rogers was a big name in the House, noted for his work on Defense. But he retired and a Republican (Mike Bishop) won a close race last year. This is a weirdly gerrymandered district, so turnout in specific areas makes a huge difference. It's also a less red district as new neighborhoods like mine have been built.

She's very popular, being Half Pint and all. Who could dislike little Laura Ingalls? They put her on the big float at the Howell Christmas parade. But can a Hollywood type who has only been around a few years win office? Who knows.

[Wolfpack]

Interesting that they chose Howell of all places to settle into for awhile given the awful reputation that it has among "enlightened" people, especially down Ann Arbor-way. Pretty much everyone in Ann Arbor thought everyone in Howell was a Klansman when I lived there.

[Solecismic]

Interesting that they chose Howell of all places to settle into for awhile given the awful reputation that it has among "enlightened" people, especially down Ann Arbor-way. Pretty much everyone in Ann Arbor thought everyone in Howell was a Klansman when I lived there.

Give them credit for being sentient people who think for themselves then.

One thing about Ann Arbor - and I grew up there - is that residents like to believe they're cosmopolitan, but they're anything but. When I was in college, I paid my way through as a sports reporter. I got out and knew every high school in the region. It was sometimes surprising.

Howell got its rep because a former Klansman "retired" in Cohoctah Township, which is north of Howell. He didn't hold events out there, but he was a bad guy. Then, when he died, someone made the mistake of holding an estate sale.

Because Ann Arbor is what it is, word got out that Howell was a den of Klansmen rather than Highlanders (the high school nickname). Livingston County votes Republican and Washtenaw County votes Democrat. In Ann Arbor, Republicans don't even bother fielding city council candidates.

So there are/were some bad characters out in Howell, and some lived out in Cohoctah, which is very, very rural and remote. But the vast majority of people I knew out there were horrified by the reputation and did everything they could to make people feel the opposite. Particularly younger people and people around the high school.

Gilbert and Busfield rented a house in Howell - they were perfectly comfortable there, and the town worships them despite their politics. I don't know where their new house will be, but I doubt they'd remain in the area and I doubt she'd run for Congress if she felt any of that crap was true.

[Butter]

This is a weirdly gerrymandered district

Aren't they all?

[NobodyHere]

Well this is nice to see.

Poll: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37 | Boston Herald (http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37)

[NobodyHere]

As of this posting Bernie Sanders is leading Iowa's extremely informal "Corn Caucus"

State Fair Poll Results (http://sos.iowa.gov/statefair.html)

[stevew]

Aren't they all?

Like PA. Most statewide office votes are 50/50ish but we've got a 5/13 split on congress and almost all of the districts are non competitive.

[Dutch]

Sanders quits event after things turn too difficult for him to handle.

'Black Lives Matter' Activists Disrupt Bernie Sanders Speech - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/black-lives-matter-activists-disrupt-bernie-sanders-speech-n406546)

[Izulde]

1) Welcome to like, 2 weeks ago.
2) The event was held later that night and drew thousands.

[Dutch]

Didn't see it mentioned here. But yeah, with all the Republican coverage, I can see how this got lost.

EDIT: Sorry, I see it was mentioned here...should probably stop by this thread more than once every 3 or 4 weeks. :)

[Julio Riddols]

I'm firmly on board with Sanders, and I hate every other candidate. I just want someone in office with a track record of consistently doing what they think is right, not changing constantly to match what the lobbyists and corporations want. Sanders, to me, represents the will of the people more than anyone, even if the people in a lot of cases still don't get that unity is a much stronger form of opposition to the current state of things than divided bickering.

I am also of the opinion that the black lives matter protesters who disturbed the rally were sent there by an opponent of Sanders, because he even gave them the floor to speak and they had nothing to say.

All that said, I have very little faith in the process, and that will likely continue for the rest of my life. As much as I want to see an end to the world the way it is now, I don't think it is reasonable to expect anything but further splintering and discord going forward. The people as a whole are idiots, and they mostly all have the right to vote. My vote won't be enough to change that, even though I am actually interested in voting for the first time in my life in this election. There is finally a candidate out there that I believe in. Can he change things single handedly? I doubt it. But maybe it would be a small step in the right direction. The people need to speak louder than the corporations and show that we will not be misled.

[Kodos]

Bernie! Bernie!

[Izulde]

Bernie! Bernie!

#feelthebern

[JeeberD]

I just can't get behind him because he's in the union's pockets. Not that I'm finding myself being able to get behind anyone else, though...

[NobodyHere]

I just can't get behind him because he's in the union's pockets. Not that I'm finding myself being able to get behind anyone else, though...

Good luck finding a candidate that isn't bought and paid for by special interests.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course its subjective odds, but I tend to enjoy using Nate Silver against some Democrats ;)

Podcast: Totally Subjective Presidential Odds (Early August Edition) | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/podcast-totally-subjective-presidential-odds-early-august-edition/)

Yes, that's Nate saying 85% odds for Hillary Clinton winning the nomination. Though on the bright side for all the Sanders' supporters, the last Bernie Sanders (Howard Dean) became the DNC Chair... so... there is that?

[ISiddiqui]

And this!

Senator Sanders, You’re No Barack Obama | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-barack-obama/)

The best data we have — polling, endorsements and fundraising — says Clinton is in a much stronger position now than she was at this point in the 2008 cycle.

Regarding polling:

Clinton is doing better in every single state. On average, she’s doing 21 percentage points better. Nationally, she’s 18 percentage points ahead of her old mark. (This shrinks to 12 percentage points if you just look at August data.)

The only state where Clinton is not doing at least 10 percentage points better is New Hampshire, which is right next door to Sanders’s home state. Even there, she has captured 8 percentage points more of the vote, on average, than she did during the summer of 2007. Clinton is running 26 percentage points ahead of where she did eight years ago in Iowa. In southern states, home to many black voters, Clinton is ahead of her 2008 pace by an average of 29 percentage points.

Simply put, Clinton has more support from Democratic primary voters this summer than she did in 2007. Moreover, no one in her polling position has lost a primary in the modern era.

[JPhillips]

I just don't see any possibility of anyone but Clinton getting the nomination. People are desperate for a horserace, but the polls are clear right now. Even if Sanders were to somehow win in NH, he doesn't have an infrastructure in every state.

I'm not even sure Mark Penn could fuck up this one.

[stevew]

I doubt he's going to win, but it would be nice if he could press her on the issues that matter.

I've also determined there's no way I'm voting for her in the general.

[Solecismic]

Joe Biden might be preparing a candidacy. Though it's hard to see why he'd be talking to Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders already captured most of the people who would favor Warren and has what would be her organization on the ground for him.

Obviously, Hillary remains the overwhelming leader in this race. The question is whether this Benghazi/email thing will last. Can the Department of Justice keep her out of serious trouble? Which rightfully sounds a bit Orwellian. Perhaps David Petraeus could be her running mate. Or at least keep her campaign calendar.

[ISiddiqui]

Latest Suffolk University folk came out for the Iowa Caucuses:

Clinton 54%
Sanders 20%
Biden 11%
O'Malley 4%
Webb 1%

The 34 point lead Clinton has in this poll is pretty substantial. I think that even if Sanders can pull out New Hampshire, that if Hillary can win Iowa by 30 points, it won't really matter as it'll mean South Carolina will go solidly Clinton and then Super Tuesday are a number of states that are more Clinton friendly.

[NobodyHere]

Joe Biden might be preparing a candidacy. Though it's hard to see why he'd be talking to Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders already captured most of the people who would favor Warren and has what would be her organization on the ground for him.

Obviously, Hillary remains the overwhelming leader in this race. The question is whether this Benghazi/email thing will last. Can the Department of Justice keep her out of serious trouble? Which rightfully sounds a bit Orwellian. Perhaps David Petraeus could be her running mate. Or at least keep her campaign calendar.

Personally I think Biden is trying to fish for a Warren endorsement which might sway some of the voters that are going for Bernie.

[Izulde]

I don't think a Warren endorsement for Biden would sway Sanders voters at this stage TBH.

[SackAttack]

Saw my first "Bernie 4 President" sign on a highway overpass tonight. It's actually the first "anybody" for President signage I've seen out here. All the Walker paraphernalia still refers to his last gubernatorial run. Haven't seen anything for any of the other GOP candidates, or a Clinton sign/bumper sticker that isn't 7 years old.

[Solecismic]

It seems Hillary is starting the final meltdown. Not sure what she was thinking by calling pro-life Republican candidates terrorists.

I guess she wants to deflect. But, then, why finally admit she screwed up on the email thing?

She somehow lost an unlose-able position to Obama eight years ago, and she seems to be on the way down again. For the Democrats, better now than later.

[ISiddiqui]

You are insane. Her lead over Sanders in the latest polls shows her at +26 and +23. Numbers higher than they were last week. Her endorsement and money position, as well as polls, are far, far, far higher now than they were in 2007.

[stevew]

Perhaps if Biden wanted to be president he could have shed that bumbling derp persona he cultivated over the past 8 years?

Still in anyone but Hilary mode. Why hasn't Gillibrand gotten out there?

[lungs]

Why hasn't Gillibrand gotten out there?

This. She's been my Hillary alternate for a few years now.

[ISiddiqui]

Well Gillibrand isn't going to run in this election ;). She's one of Clinton's leading lieutenants in her Presidential campaign.

Heck, Gillibrand endorsed Hillary Clinton last November.

[chesapeake]

Still in anyone but Hilary mode. Why hasn't Gillibrand gotten out there?

Gillibrand is personally close to HRC and won't run against her. At 48, she has time to wait and run in 2020 or 2024 with the full backing of the Clinton electoral machine. She's also got young kids, which makes the choice to wait even easier to make.

[Jas_lov]

Latest Suffolk University folk came out for the Iowa Caucuses:

Clinton 54%
Sanders 20%
Biden 11%
O'Malley 4%
Webb 1%

The 34 point lead Clinton has in this poll is pretty substantial. I think that even if Sanders can pull out New Hampshire, that if Hillary can win Iowa by 30 points, it won't really matter as it'll mean South Carolina will go solidly Clinton and then Super Tuesday are a number of states that are more Clinton friendly.

Des Moines Register poll this morning has it Clinton 37%, Sanders 30%, Biden 14%. That big lead is gone.

[stevew]

Bernie continues to build on his numbers in recent polls. Surely he won't stay at 5% with AA voters forever, right? I keep praying for the ultimate Hilary scandal to end this all. Too bad Gore won't run....he already won the presidency once.

[EagleFan]

Hillary will win the democrat party nomination, it is unavoidable. It beats the socialist policies of bernie. At this point Hillary would get my vote over Trump or fat bastard governor. If it were bernie versus one of them I may have to declare my property an independent country.

[NobodyHere]

#FeelTheBern

[Solecismic]

Not much going on these days other than the media setting up 24/7 camps outside of Biden's home, office, grocery store, dentist and local pizza place trying to figure out if he's running.

It's too bad Joan Quigley died last year.

[Dutch]

Hillary will win the democrat party nomination, it is unavoidable. It beats the socialist policies of bernie. At this point Hillary would get my vote over Trump or fat bastard governor. If it were bernie versus one of them I may have to declare my property an independent country.

How are going to get all the free stuff he is promising if you aren't part of the country?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Des Moines Register poll this morning has it Clinton 37%, Sanders 30%, Biden 14%. That big lead is gone.

Proving perhaps that the Iowa caucuses are pretty much worthless.

[Izulde]

Bernie is up in both Iowa and New Hampshire FWIW

[larrymcg421]

The latest PPP Iowa poll: Clinton 43, Sanders 22, Biden 17

[ISiddiqui]

And in the latest CNN poll, Clinton's lead nation wide has grown from the lows of early September:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/hillary-clinton-leads-bernie-sanders-2016/

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton's lead in the Democratic presidential primary race has grown -- and if Vice President Joe Biden decides to stay out of the race, her numbers would rise even higher, a new CNN/ORC poll shows.

Clinton is backed by 42% of Democratic primary voters nationally, compared to 24% for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 22% for Biden and 1% for former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.

That's a marked improvement over an early September CNN/ORC poll that found Clinton leading Sanders, 37% to 27%, with Biden at 20%.

And Biden's support comes almost entirely from Clinton's camp. Without the vice president in the race, Clinton's numbers climb by 15 percentage points, while Sanders' increase by only 4 points -- giving Clinton a nearly 2-to-1 lead at 57% to 28%, with O'Malley moving up to 2%.

It appears a lot of that closeness was a result of the bad PR Clinton was getting every day on the email scandal and as that has dissipated a bit, her numbers have gone back up.

[JPhillips]

Martin O'Malley is barely registering.

But, he's still better than Walker's last poll.

[molson]

Biden seems to be doing significantly better than Clinton or Sanders in the head-to-head with Republicans polls - but that might just be the "backup QB" factor.

I'm thinking he's just hanging around the the periphery of candidacy as Hillary scandal insurance for the establishment.

[albionmoonlight]

Biden seems to be doing significantly better than Clinton or Sanders in the head-to-head with Republicans polls - but that might just be the "backup QB" factor.

I'm thinking he's just hanging around the the periphery of candidacy as Hillary scandal insurance for the establishment.

Yeah. No one's attacking Biden right now. Pumps up his numbers. And I agree 100% that he's there to make sure that it isn't Bernie in case Clinton has to drop out.

[ISiddiqui]

It does seem that most Biden supporters would vote Clinton over Sanders (when you take Biden out of the question, Clinton is the one that benefits). But he has the tendency to not campaign well in national elections (see his last two runs for President).

[Sun Tzu]

I think most of you know my views on politics in the US. I won't dive into them again here, but I wanted to preface this post with that gentle reminder.

A little more background: I'm a "tech start-up" guy, and as you would imagine, my professional and personal network is made-up almost entirely of young, intelligent, influential, successful people. Over the past month, I have been overwhelmed by friends and acquaintances (from both political parties) urging me to check out this "Bernie Sanders" guy that's running for president. And I'm not talking a half dozen people, here - I'm talking triple digits. I didn't give it much thought, though, because...well...I'm famously stubborn. Just ask my CEO.

Last weekend I happened upon an interview with Bernie Sanders, and I was completely floored. I've been reading up on the field, watching debates, getting some perspective on Bernie, and asking around the "front lines" at my current company (almost entirely made-up of people 20-28 years old). Bernie Sanders is absolutely capturing the hearts and minds of the younger, thinking generation of this country. I sincerely hope he gets the Dem nomination this year, because if he does, there's nobody in the Republican party that stands a chance. I understand that pessimists continue to write him off, and not because he's incapable of doing the job (and doing it quite well), but because he doesn't have corporate money backing him.

You may not like me as a person, but you can't argue with numbers, and there's a trend here that's undeniable. Anyone with a working logical mind can see where the (attached) chart is headed. For the first time in my life, I'm considering voting for someone, because I genuinely believe that if he were running the show, I would feel something that I have never felt in my life...

...The hope that before I die, I will feel a sense of pride in my country. The feeling that I won't be looking longingly at progressive countries in the EU, wondering why we can't join them in the 21st century. And I'm not alone. If people aged 18-25 decide to participate in this upcoming presidential election, watch out.

(attached chart below)

[ISiddiqui]

People were also discussing the trend of Trump... so you know, in a few months, he'll be at 100 ;).

And interestingly enough, as the CNN poll linked above indicates, just about all of Biden's support would go to Clinton if Biden wasn't in the race... and it looks like he probably won't be (or will be around as a "just in case" option).

Look at the trend line again. See where Hillary Clinton really drops? Thats in July... you know who else really started to rise in July? Biden. I mean, yes, Sanders' support went from 10% to 25%.. but I don't see it going much higher, as the people who were going away from Hillary due to the email scandal decided to pick Biden.

[Sun Tzu]

I disagree with your opinion, but cool! ;)

[SackAttack]

Look at the trend line again. See where Hillary Clinton really drops? Thats in July... you know who else really started to rise in July? Biden. I mean, yes, Sanders' support went from 10% to 25%.. but I don't see it going much higher, as the people who were going away from Hillary due to the email scandal decided to pick Biden.

But Biden's been running ahead of Sanders, mostly, since well before July. The rest of the candidates have been persona non grata. So where is Sanders' upswing coming from if your assertion is that the Hillary drop corresponds with the Biden rise, and not with the Sanders rise?

I mean, eyeballing that chart, Biden's gone from a fairly consistent 18% or so to 21% or so, while Sanders has risen from around 5% to 30%'ish. I just don't think, even with Biden's increase (likely within the margin of error) we can reasonably ascribe Hillary's drop to Biden's rise and not to Sanders'.

[Dutch]

...The hope that before I die, I will feel a sense of pride in my country. The feeling that I won't be looking longingly at progressive countries in the EU, wondering why we can't join them in the 21st century.

I'm guess Obama wasn't good enough for ya?

[molson]

Among Sanders supporters, is there a hope that Sanders can get his more liberal policies through Congress in a way Obama couldn't? Or is his appeal about the more symbolic value of having a self-described "democratic socialist" in the white house? It's tough for me to understand because I think the best way to enact more liberal policies is through someone who would have a better relationship with the right, a deal-maker (i.e., a Clinton).

If I had to pick between the two weirdo outsiders I think Trump has a better chance than Sanders of actually becoming president. But I though Trump had zero chance just a few months ago, so who knows.

[Sun Tzu]

I'm guess Obama wasn't good enough for ya?

I never really saw Obama as being jarringly different than what we've had for the 3 decades of presidents before him (can't comment on anything prior to my lifetime). So no...not really. He doesn't boil my potatoes, if that's what you're asking.

[Dutch]

But do those 20-year old liberal chicks? I bet they do. :)

[SackAttack]

Among Sanders supporters, is there a hope that Sanders can get his more liberal policies through Congress in a way Obama couldn't? Or is his appeal about the more symbolic value of having a self-described "democratic socialist" in the white house? It's tough for me to understand because I think the best way to enact more liberal policies is through someone who would have a better relationship with the right, a deal-maker (i.e., a Clinton).

If I had to pick between the two weirdo outsiders I think Trump has a better chance than Sanders of actually becoming president. But I though Trump had zero chance just a few months ago, so who knows.

Yeah, I've been on record as saying that you want your liberal (or conservative) firebrands influencing legislation in Congress, and that you want your Presidential candidate to be a) electable and b) sympathetic to your goals even if he isn't overtly a flag-waving standard bearer for your ideology.

Democrats shouldn't want a President Warren or a President Sanders. That takes them out of the Senate where they can influence the legislation that whoever gets elected can sign.

Republicans shouldn't want a President Cruz. Same rationale.

Now, I mean...I can see an argument for "if we get the guy who's a self-described democratic socialist elected and the world doesn't end, maybe we'll finally get traction on getting democratic socialists elected to Congress in any numbers."

I don't think it'd work out all that well, but I can see the argument for putting the cart before the horse that way.

Outside of that, I think it's mainly wishcasting that Sanders would be their liberal dream with the muscle of an LBJ to force compliance from Congress.

[JPhillips]

Nobody is going to get anything meaningful through congress, so I don't think the difference between Sanders and Clinton matters. Thhrough 2020 at least the GOP is going to have a lock on at least one house of congress and their districts provide no incentive to compromise. The one advantage I can see with Sanders is pushing the window of acceptability to the left.

That being said, I don't think Sanders can win and I'm more in favor of Hillary.

[SackAttack]

Nobody is going to get anything meaningful through congress, so I don't think the difference between Sanders and Clinton matters. Thhrough 2020 at least the GOP is going to have a lock on at least one house of congress and their districts provide no incentive to compromise. The one advantage I can see with Sanders is pushing the window of acceptability to the left.

That being said, I don't think Sanders can win and I'm more in favor of Hillary.

Well, when I talk about about the President signing anything, I'm talking in general terms. In general, you don't want your Presidential candidate to be a lightning rod. You want a candidate acceptable enough to win and pliable enough to sign the legislation your ideologues in Congress send to him or her.

It's going to take a massive GOTV, either in 2016 or 2020, to get the House back, but getting the House back is secondary to getting control of the statehouses back. If you can get the statehouses back in 2020, then you can redistrict something that doesn't have you winning 60% of your state's ballots cast and getting 40% of the state delegation to Congress (he said as he eyed his own state).

[JPhillips]

I think Obama's biggest failure was a lack of a plan for 2010. That cost him six years of GOP veto and will guarantee a first-term GOP veto if a Dem wins in 2016.

[albionmoonlight]

It's going to take a massive GOTV, either in 2016 or 2020, to get the House back, but getting the House back is secondary to getting control of the statehouses back. If you can get the statehouses back in 2020, then you can redistrict something that doesn't have you winning 60% of your state's ballots cast and getting 40% of the state delegation to Congress (he said as he eyed his own state).

And that's where the GOP has been playing varsity while the Dems have been playing JV. The GOP got that the presidency is a big important job and they tried to win it. But their real successful efforts have been at the state and local level. They have realized that the majority of policy happens at that level. And that control of the states gives you control of the federal districting. And they've worked to get those state houses, while the Dems have under-committed resources to those races.

And, when the GOP does get control of the statehouses, they have plug-n-play ALEC bills that they push through on party-line votes. They don't waste time figuring out what to do when they are in charge. They immediately push through their policies. I don't agree with those polices, but I give them an A+ for execution.

The high-profile nature of the presidency, where the Dems have done pretty decently, masks the single biggest development in American politics in the last 15-20 years: how much better than the Dems the GOP is at politics.

[QuikSand]

+1 to that

[ISiddiqui]

But Biden's been running ahead of Sanders, mostly, since well before July. The rest of the candidates have been persona non grata. So where is Sanders' upswing coming from if your assertion is that the Hillary drop corresponds with the Biden rise, and not with the Sanders rise?

I mean, eyeballing that chart, Biden's gone from a fairly consistent 18% or so to 21% or so, while Sanders has risen from around 5% to 30%'ish. I just don't think, even with Biden's increase (likely within the margin of error) we can reasonably ascribe Hillary's drop to Biden's rise and not to Sanders'.

If you add up 60 and 20 you get 80. That means 20 are undecided.

I mean just look at that graph. Look at Hillary's drop from July and Biden's rise from July. They literally look like mirror images of each other. Sanders' rise started before July and doesn't seem to exactly match Hillary's fall. I think it's quite apparent.

And when you look at things like CNN's poll that says when you take out Biden from the equation, Hillary has 30-40 lead on Sanders... well, there you go. I'll quote the CNN poll:

And Biden's support comes almost entirely from Clinton's camp. Without the vice president in the race, Clinton's numbers climb by 15 percentage points, while Sanders' increase by only 4 points -- giving Clinton a nearly 2-to-1 lead at 57% to 28%, with O'Malley moving up to 2%.

[stevew]

It's pretty funny when a debate features the frontrunner, a guy who can't win, 3 fractional percentage support candidates and doesn't include the 3rd place guy who can't even be bothered to decide. Should be interesting tonight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It seems Hillary is starting the final meltdown. Not sure what she was thinking by calling pro-life Republican candidates terrorists.

I guess she wants to deflect. But, then, why finally admit she screwed up on the email thing?

She somehow lost an unlose-able position to Obama eight years ago, and she seems to be on the way down again. For the Democrats, better now than later.

So are you predicting/expecting Biden to enter the race then? Because he's the only potential candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of beating her.

[Izulde]

People still underestimating Bernie.

[Grover]

People still underestimating Bernie.

+1

The differences between he and Hillary will really start to show tonight. This debate gives Bernie the platform to reach those who aren't familiar with him.

I'm excited.

[Kodos]

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

[QuikSand]

I was at an event last week in Baltimore with a number of still-faithful O'Malley loyalists. The TV was running ads for the debate, and I was mocking the presentation... a big lingering screen with the names CLINTON SANDERS, and then a super-quick flash with O'MALLEY WEBB CHAFEE after that. It came off just like the obligatory legal disclaimer language sounds... "well, I guess we have to tell people we are letting these other clowns take the stage, too."

The tenor of Team O'Malley remains upbeat, they are keeping in mind the whole cycle with the GOP field from 4 years ago. They are split whether a Biden run would be good for them.

Meanwhile, a Maryland-only poll found MOM with only 4% here in his home state. These things do tend to simply reinforce themselves (people back the leaders), but that's just an eye-popping low number.

[QuikSand]

And to me, the most intriguing thing about Sanders in this debate is not at all connected to what he actually says. The transcript likely doesn't matter. I think the biggest issue is whether on this stage, and in this setting, he "looks presidential." He's got a ton of images floating around where he looks windswept and unkempt, and that's pretty clearly the kind of guy he has always been - but even liberals want their candidate to fill out a business suit and look the damned part. He can't remain viable if it's only Ben, Jerry, and the rest of the Kucinich voters who remain behind him. That's his house of cards here, more than anything he's very likely to say, I think.

[larrymcg421]

I love Bernie Sanders. I saw him speak in Iowa last year when I was working on a campaign. I think a world where Bernie Sanders can be president is a nice world. I do not live in that world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

People still underestimating Bernie.

I really don't think so. If you're the 20 in a 70-20-10misc split (or 65-35-10) then you're pretty much irrelevant. The difference in those splits are garbage time touchdowns in a 50 point blowout game. And that's exactly what I expect will happen in the large majority of states.

And, just for the record I guess, I believe I've proven that I can set aside my feelings for anyone & objectively assess a contest. I mean, LSU & UGA both appear frequently in my college football polls and generally within the norms of other assessments. I honestly don't believe my intense feelings about Sanders have an impact on what I anticipate. If anything, given my fatalistic nature, I'd tend to overestimate him.

[flere-imsaho]

I love Bernie Sanders. I saw him speak in Iowa last year when I was working on a campaign. I think a world where Bernie Sanders can be president is a nice world. I do not live in that world.

:withstupid:

[Grover]

:withstupid:

Did you go see him in Portland a few months back?

[flere-imsaho]

I didn't, actually as I was out of town at the time.

[AENeuman]

To me, HRC has a Nixionioan task of coming off likable and trustworthy.

[JPhillips]

Since Nixon won 2(3?) elections, she should feel pretty good about that.

[AENeuman]

Since Nixon won 2(3?) elections, she should feel pretty good about that.

Yep. Just think it is harder to convince voters you are likable and trustworthy than being qualified. Harder, but not impossible.

[JPhillips]

The more I think about it, the more I like the comparison as it applies to 1968. Nixon in 1968 convinced the country to go with the controversial, but capable candidate over the crazy loons in the Dem party.

Sounds like 2016.

[albionmoonlight]

It will be good for Clinton if she gets bloodied a bit here. If she wins what appears to be a real fight, that makes her a "winner" and helps with likability. But there needs to be a fight for her to win.

[Bisbo]

It will be good for Clinton if she gets bloodied a bit here. If she wins what appears to be a real fight, that makes her a "winner" and helps with likability. But there needs to be a fight for her to win.

Just so long as she doesn't have blood coming out of her whatever.

[stevew]

Just so long as she doesn't have blood coming out of her whatever.

Please, she went through menopause 2 decades ago probably.

[heybrad]

**Disclaimer** I never want to get into these political threads, but...

No matter what you think of Bernie Sanders, I don't see how anybody is going to win the White House by saying we should be like Denmark.

[BishopMVP]

And that's where the GOP has been playing varsity while the Dems have been playing JV. The GOP got that the presidency is a big important job and they tried to win it. But their real successful efforts have been at the state and local level. They have realized that the majority of policy happens at that level. And that control of the states gives you control of the federal districting. And they've worked to get those state houses, while the Dems have under-committed resources to those races.This, especially because I feel strongly that mre policy should be done on a state level. I live in Massachusetts (and a very liberal town in that state), so it's funny hearing Sanders described as a crazy socialist when much of what he's advocating has already passed at the state level. Things like required health care, a higher minimum wage, tougher gun control laws, higher corporate taxes etc were all passed here before they were a big deal nationally. And on issues like that I can't understand why there need to be exact national standards. Texas and California are bigger than most countries in the world, why not let them try different approaches. Not only can you then let people vote with their feet (or actually vote at the state level) if they feel strongly, but you'd also get a look at different approaches. And if we're being honest there isn't a gun control law that should apply to both Vermont and Baltimore.

Idk if it's the moderators or the candidates but I did feel the Republican debate went much smoother than this one.

[Edward64]

Watching the debate now. The one thing that sticks out is the Chafee seems to be out of his league right now.

[Scoobz0202]

His response of "It was my first day" was one of the worst answers I've ever heard

[Jas_lov]

Chafee's done. If they do play a clip of him it will be the "It was my first day" line. All Webb did was complain about the debate. O'Malley didn't do much to stand out. Those 3 should just drop out and Biden get in the race. Hillary and Bernie both did fine.

[stevew]

Chafee was only polling a slight bit higher than "Random FOFC guy" going in.

[NobodyHere]

Chafee's done. If they do play a clip of him it will be the "It was my first day" line. All Webb did was complain about the debate. O'Malley didn't do much to stand out. Those 3 should just drop out and Biden get in the race. Hillary and Bernie both did fine.

I did enjoy O'Malley's dig at Debbie Wasserman Schultz though. Even if it means he won't be invited to participate in any more debates.

[ISiddiqui]

His response of "It was my first day" was one of the worst answers I've ever heard

Seriously, how in the world did he think that was a good answer to anything? Webb's my enemy was the due I killed in 'Nam was almost as bad as well - and channeled Walter from the Big Lebowski.

Hillary Clinton seemed to be the only candidate that really did substantial debate prep at times.

[PilotMan]

Seriously, how in the world did he think that was a good answer to anything? Webb's my enemy was the due I killed in 'Nam was almost as bad as well - and channeled Walter from the Big Lebowski.

Hillary Clinton seemed to be the only candidate that really did substantial debate prep at times.

In reality, you'd have to think that she's really the only one with anything to lose.

[Solecismic]

It was definitely a softer and friendlier debate - that's the Democratic advantage with CNN. The audience seemed to have a lot of high-up Democrats.

Chafee was weak - no idea why he wants to run. Webb makes the mistake of telling the voters they should vote for him and he will cheerfully spend the next hour telling you more if they let him. So he's the Democratic version of Kasich. O'Malley is the guy who always one-ups you and tries to make it sound like it was his idea in the first place. Sanders stuck to his message and was effective, and wins easily if you use the criteria of having control over the message from the party. But he doesn't look very presidential - just angry and old. Clinton was strong, but used the "first woman president" line too much. Is that why we should vote for her?

The debate's theme was basically, "what should we do if we could raise an infinite amount of money by taxing rich people?" We hear this every four years, but it seems like every effort to tax rich people invariably ends up socking the rest of us. Oh, well. It's nice to dream.

I don't think the debate changed any minds. But it seemed more intended as a campaign commercial.

I think I've had enough of Chafee, Webb and O'Malley. Though Biden's strategy of bidin' his time is probably the correct one for now. I would like to see a real debate at some point involving Sanders and Clinton. She's smart enough to try and avoid that - I wouldn't be surprised if her people were able to keep it to this kind of friendly event.

What could Biden offer? Sanders and Clinton are going nuclear on the Republicans. Clinton uses every opportunity to tell us they're evil. OK, maybe they are, but that isn't going to get legislation passed. Sanders admits he can't work with them, so his plan is to get people to vote the Republicans out of office. So Biden could make his mark letting them attack and sounding like the guy who could actually get their policies in place (ironic considering his role during the Obama campaign).

[QuikSand]

I mostly agree with the gentleman from the state up north.

Since I know O'Malley well, I'm sure I paid closer attention to him than the average viewer. I think he reached toward the high end of his possible outcomes from last night, not a home run but perhaps a ground rule double. He benefited from the placement, and managed a good number of two-way or three-way camera shots. He was pretty good, but not great, on guns - an issue where I think he should be focusing more aggressively.

I think it's O'Malley who is the Kasich of this field in the ways that matter -- he's got the "I actually did this stuff" message much better than even HRC. He fails to crush it, but that's really his best angle.

I think he should see a tiny bump in polling, and should feel good that the two fringe candidates all but buried themselves last night. Bernie didn't implode, but I think the fissures are there. Either a botched or non-existent run from Biden would, I think, still offer a path to victory for him, albeit a still tenuous one.

His whole angle is the 2012 cycle with Romney-versus-whomever. Everyone on the list got a shot being the alternative to the front runner, including the people who polled terribly through important periods. That can surely still happen here.

[QuikSand]

Fun coverage: The real reason Hillary Clinton won the debate: No one else was on her level - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/the_real_reason_hillary_clinton_won_the_debate_no_one_else_was_at_her_level/)

[ISiddiqui]

I think Biden missed his chance. And every talking head apparently is saying this as well. Especially as Clinton had taken the position of being strongly pro-Obama on most issues.

[flere-imsaho]

Who thought it would be a Democratic candidate who first mentioned killing someone?

[corbes]

I have a hard time seeing the Bernie supporters jumping to O'Malley. He doesn't seem like their bag.

[The Jackal]

**Disclaimer** I never want to get into these political threads, but...

No matter what you think of Bernie Sanders, I don't see how anybody is going to win the White House by saying we should be like Denmark.

Democratic, Republican, whatever - we should have universal healthcare and good educations shouldn't cost money. (Disclaimer: I'm not entirely sure what Denmark has, but I imagine it's something like that)

[molson]

For me, it's pretty clear that there's only one Democrat running for president who is actually qualified to have that job. Which is really bewildering considering the gains Democrats have made in other offices, and in party registration in general. And considering how many people don't like Clinton, and how our society is still in a place where people are making period jokes when a woman happens to be campaigning for a position of power. Where are all the younger rising Democrats who should be making waves right now, promoting a new way of doing business? I kind of get the raw appeal of a guy like Sanders but at the end of the day he's kind of just like a angry liberal redditor yelling about what he would do if he was king of America in a one-party system. Where are the younger competent electable Democrats with realistic plans to promote their party's policy through the top executive branch job? A person like that without Clinton's baggage would destroy any of the top Republicans next year.

[ISiddiqui]

To be fair, a lot of them are on Hillary Clinton's team (ie, have backed her). No one really wants to run into that buzzsaw in this election. There is a handful of younger Democratic governors who are interesting (Beshear, Bullock, Hickenlooper, Hassan, etc).

[Solecismic]

I just saw a link to the Drudge poll about yesterday's debate:

Sanders 54%, Webb 25%, Clinton 9%, O'Malley 7%, Chafee 4%.

So the important question is - is this bot behavior or is there really no poll and it's just random numbers?

I don't know which piece of this "poll" is the silliest - maybe it's the 4% for Chafee.

One narrative I'm seeing, and I tend to agree with it, is... was the moment when Sanders said he knew this wasn't the right move politically but it was time to stop talking about the emails... was that the moment Clinton secured the nomination?

Otherwise, Clinton is so heavily entrenched and endorsed that the only narrative for un-entrenching is the trustworthiness argument. If you rally behind her on it, that issue goes away... until the general. Which gives both sides about nine months to figure out how to use it/defend it.

Is that a good strategy? I think so, under the circumstances. It's not a great hand the Democrats were dealt for 2016, but this is one way to play it that may work and takes full advantage of what will be a longer, more contentious Republican primary.

[ISiddiqui]

Webb at 25% is hilarious. I think that even bots wouldn't do that.

[albionmoonlight]

For me, it's pretty clear that there's only one Democrat running for president who is actually qualified to have that job. Which is really bewildering considering the gains Democrats have made in other offices, and in party registration in general. And considering how many people don't like Clinton, and how our society is still in a place where people are making period jokes when a woman happens to be campaigning for a position of power. Where are all the younger rising Democrats who should be making waves right now, promoting a new way of doing business? I kind of get the raw appeal of a guy like Sanders but at the end of the day he's kind of just like a angry liberal redditor yelling about what he would do if he was king of America in a one-party system. Where are the younger competent electable Democrats with realistic plans to promote their party's policy through the top executive branch job? A person like that without Clinton's baggage would destroy any of the top Republicans next year.

I think that they are waiting their turn.

Which I really disagree with. Not to get all hyperbolic, but do you really have what it takes to be President if you are scared of taking on a front-runner in the primary?

[ISiddiqui]

Which I really disagree with. Not to get all hyperbolic, but do you really have what it takes to be President if you are scared of taking on a front-runner in the primary?

It's not being scared; it's being smart. By backing the front runner, you may have a good shot and taking over the campaign apparatus when you want to run. Starting your own campaign team while the best minds are working for the front runner isn't necessarily the best option - and a lot of those best minds will be spending a lot of time digging up stuff on you or trying to destroy you, so may not be people who will jump when it's "your turn".

[molson]

The whole Clinton dynasty started when Bill wasn't afraid to take on the unbeatable Bush where so many more established names in his party were.

Obama took on the front-runner in his own party when it would have been safer and easier to back Clinton and setup himself up for later.

[Butter]

Sanders and Clinton are going nuclear on the Republicans. Clinton uses every opportunity to tell us they're evil. OK, maybe they are, but that isn't going to get legislation passed.

Do you really think there is going to be any sort of bi-partisan, legislation making coalition that stems from the '16 elections? The Republicans are doubling-down on their strategy of "no compromise ever", so what should Clinton do? Do you think the Dems solution should be "let's move closer to the right to get things done"?

[Solecismic]

Do you really think there is going to be any sort of bi-partisan, legislation making coalition that stems from the '16 elections? The Republicans are doubling-down on their strategy of "no compromise ever", so what should Clinton do? Do you think the Dems solution should be "let's move closer to the right to get things done"?

I think both sides are in a protected bubble where they each say the other side has doubled down on its strategy of no compromise ever.

They each repeat it to their followers, and it has become the law of the land. And they firmly believe that the other side is 100% to blame.

However, compromise is not saying, "we're going to do this, and you can either sign it with us or not" when the other side is saying we should do something entirely different. Both sides are guilty of this.

We'll never get anywhere until both sides admit that polarization and identity politics have done incredible damage.

[molson]

Compromise also isn't just settling for half of what you want, when the other side doesn't doesn't want to do that half.

[albionmoonlight]

I think both sides are in a protected bubble where they each say the other side has doubled down on its strategy of no compromise ever.

They each repeat it to their followers, and it has become the law of the land. And they firmly believe that the other side is 100% to blame.

However, compromise is not saying, "we're going to do this, and you can either sign it with us or not" when the other side is saying we should do something entirely different. Both sides are guilty of this.

We'll never get anywhere until both sides admit that polarization and identity politics have done incredible damage.

I don't agree with that equivalence. The GOP has moved farther to the right than the Dems have to the left. The Dems' biggest legislative achievement was modeled on the plan used by the GOP's most recent presidential candidate.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/house_means_112.jpg&w=1484

This is probably an agree to disagree point. And there are a lot of political problems where I would agree that the Dems and the GOP are equally to blame. But everything I see demonstrates that polarization is not one of those problems. There, the GOP deserves more blame than the Dems.

[albionmoonlight]

dola. Sorry for the chart size

[Solecismic]

Therefore we have to learn to compromise on what it means to compromise.

We have a long way to go. So the question is whether the declarations of war we're seeing on both sides during the primary are moving us closer to compromise or further away.

[Solecismic]

I don't agree with that equivalence. The GOP has moved farther to the right than the Dems have to the left. The Dems' biggest legislative achievement was modeled on the plan used by the GOP's most recent presidential candidate.

This is probably an agree to disagree point. And there are a lot of political problems where I would agree that the Dems and the GOP are equally to blame. But everything I see demonstrates that polarization is not one of those problems. There, the GOP deserves more blame than the Dems.

That chart is making the rounds lately. And the authors state, in their explanation, that while they feel the Republicans have moved further away from the norm, the Democrats are more entrenched in identity politics.

As researchers of social science, though, they've had to make decisions about what the norm is. And they've decided to move with public consensus. The Republicans haven't moved with the consensus on abortion issues (about where the divide gets wider) and gay rights. So does that lack of movement mean polarization is their fault? After all, we're only 20 years removed from Clinton's DOMA, which had broad bipartisan support.

I don't know the answer. This chart is one way to frame it. I think the Brookings guys are doing the best they can to honestly assess the issue, but their choice of norms is being misused by the Democrats to show something the researchers probably didn't intend.

[JPhillips]

Who thought it would be a Democratic candidate who first mentioned killing someone?

How long till Trump starts tweeting a body count?

[Grover]

Just gonna leave this here...

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12112328_857035497751466_1970592743208010823_n.jpg?oh=441de2a102324306dfe5af1e3b7c0357&oe=568DB688

[JPhillips]

The big difference is that the GOP has refused to support anything from Obama even when it moves the ball in their direction. They decided that and GOP support gives the appearance of bipartisanship and that makes Obama stronger. Obama was willing to give on Medicare and Social Security and they still said no.

The Dems have issues where they won't budge, but most will go along with the opposition if they think it advances the ball. A sizable portion, enough to control the House, sees compromise itself as the enemy.

[Butter]

Therefore we have to learn to compromise on what it means to compromise.

We have a long way to go. So the question is whether the declarations of war we're seeing on both sides during the primary are moving us closer to compromise or further away.

I think the vote of no confidence on Boehner speaks volumes about the actual source of these "compromise" problems.

And I believe according to polling, more voters believe Republicans are responsible for gridlock overall and the last government shutdown. So who really stands to lose when the political arena becomes more polarized?

[ISiddiqui]

The whole Clinton dynasty started when Bill wasn't afraid to take on the unbeatable Bush where so many more established names in his party were.

Obama took on the front-runner in his own party when it would have been safer and easier to back Clinton and setup himself up for later.

Bill Clinton actually waited his turn. He was being mentioned for 1998 and he passed. 1992 was actually not a bad time to run to be the party's nominee since there were a good number of Democrats running in the primaries and the big names that were being mentioned (Cuomo, Gore) decided not to run.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, and there's a difference between running against a prohibitive favorite in the opposition party and one in your own party. Bill Clinton didn't burn any bridges by running where someone running against Hillary may.

[molson]

Bill Clinton didn't burn any bridges by running where someone running against Hillary may.

That didn't seem to scare off Obama.

In 2016, with the current state of the parties, and where the country is moving generally, the Republicans really shouldn't be coming close in a presidential election. But the Republicans are polling really well against Sanders and Clinton. Whatever "safe and smart" strategies these Dems are utilizing, it may very well result in President Trump.

[flere-imsaho]

However, compromise is not saying, "we're going to do this, and you can either sign it with us or not" when the other side is saying we should do something entirely different. Both sides are guilty of this.

That's some bullshit false equivalence right there.

[JPhillips]

That didn't seem to scare off Obama.

In 2016, with the current state of the parties, and where the country is moving generally, the Republicans really shouldn't be coming close in a presidential election. But the Republicans are polling really well against Sanders and Clinton. Whatever "safe and smart" strategies these Dems are utilizing, it may very well result in President Trump.

I'd agree that Obama took a risk, especially with how the campaign played out from SC on, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.

The Dems face one really difficult fundamental, we don't like to give one party control of the White House for more than two consecutive terms. I still think Hillary is the favorite given the changing demographics and the extreme positions of some of the GOP, but it's going to be very close. I don't think there's any Dem that could change that.

[Warhammer]

That didn't seem to scare off Obama.

In 2016, with the current state of the parties, and where the country is moving generally, the Republicans really shouldn't be coming close in a presidential election. But the Republicans are polling really well against Sanders and Clinton. Whatever "safe and smart" strategies these Dems are utilizing, it may very well result in President Trump.

This statement is what hacks me off about the Republicans right now. They are barking up the wrong tree, forget the social issues, focus on economic policy and we can have a very good discussion. But no, they focus on Know-Nothing politics and are squandering what should be a very winnable election cycle.

[SackAttack]

The Dems face one really difficult fundamental, we don't like to give one party control of the White House for more than two consecutive terms.

That's kind of a recent development. Before Bill Clinton took office, five of the previous six Presidential terms of office had been in the hands of the Republican Party, beginning with Richard Nixon. However, prior to Nixon, Democrats had held the White House for seven of the previous nine terms.

The recent trade-off, is it because politics have polarized? Is it because of the Bush name having high recognition value after Clinton?

I'm not saying that it's definitely going to switch or that it's definitely going to stay in Democratic hands, but I *am* saying that the tag-you're-it from 1992 to the present day isn't really a great comparison when you look at 1932-1992. That sixty-year period was a pretty reliable bloc of control by one party or the other. The last couple decades have been more schizophrenic, but one could make the argument that's more about candidate quality than about "we don't like to give one party control for more than two terms."

[JPhillips]

But from 1952 to today, we've only had one instance of one party controlling for three terms(Reagan/Bush).

Eisenhower -2
Kennedy/Johnson -2
Nixon-2
Carter -1
Reagan -2
Bush -1
Clinton -2
Bush -2
Obama -2

You can argue Carter was an anomaly after Watergate, but it's very difficult to win three consecutive terms for one party.

edit: If Ford had won, I doubt Reagan is ever elected. If he beat Ford in the 1980 primary he would have had a tough time with the Ford recession weighing him down and an argument that we should revolt against the GOP policies with GOP policies. By 1984 he would have been 73 and possibly running against the headwind of the Dem recovery.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, yeah, but 4 of those 7 terms were FDR ;).

[larrymcg421]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 3m3 minutes ago
Prediction markets give Lincoln Chafee a 0 percent chance of winning the nomination. We think that's too high. Did The Democratic Debate Change The Odds? | FiveThirtyEight (http://53eig.ht/1LN5uCx)

[larrymcg421]

That three term exception is largely because Dukakis ran such a terrible campaign. The fundamentals were there for him to win.

[flere-imsaho]

'88 was the same as '00, for me. With a half-way decent candidate, people just wanted a change.

[SackAttack]

But from 1952 to today, we've only had one instance of one party controlling for three terms(Reagan/Bush).

Okay but let's take a look.

Eisenhower -2
Kennedy/Johnson -2

Kennedy vs Nixon was television's coming out party. I'd argue that wasn't as much about "we don't want a third Republican term" as "holy shit Nixon looks old and Kennedy looks young and vigorous which is what we want in our President with the Russians making noises."

Nixon-2
Carter -1

LBJ is said to have remarked that "we've lost the South for a generation" after he signed the Civil Rights Act, and Nixon's successful run for the Presidency was predicated on the "Southern Strategy" - go get all those disaffected Southern Democrats and get 'em to vote Republican. Was that about "we don't want a third Democratic term"? I don't know. I mean, maybe you could make that argument, that it was pushback from a significant-enough part of the population that wasn't thrilled with civil rights. But I'm not sure that's symptomatic of Democratic fatigue as much as just the timing of the CRA vs the 1968 elections.

Reagan -2
Bush -1
Clinton -2

Reasonably sure that if there hadn't been a 1-2 punch of Bush conceding on tax cuts and a recession, he gets re-elected with ease. Remember, his approval rating was north of 90% in 1991, during the first Gulf War. Really not sure you can call that one "we don't like giving one party that long in office."

Bush -2
Obama -2

There's some debate, of course, over whether Bush "won" the 2000 election. I mean, that the election was even close enough for there to be debate is probably because Gore had all the charisma of a dessicated stick. There may have been some Clinton fatigue. Maybe whoever the Democrats nominate in 2000 fails to get to measure for new drapes. But wooden Gore versus charismatic Dubya is probably not the best measuring stick for whether people just don't like electing one party to 3+ terms in the White House.

You can argue Carter was an anomaly after Watergate, but it's very difficult to win three consecutive terms for one party.

There have been three other opportunities besides the anomaly you cite in the last 112+ years for the party controlling the White House to gain a third consecutive term. Harding won in a three-way contest, Kennedy beat Nixon, and Bush beat Gore. I mean, that's it. Those three and Carter are the only examples of an incumbent party failing to win a third term.

Harding was a member of the party out of power after the Great War, I already discussed the age-versus-youth bit that the televised debates contributed to 1968, and the charisma-versus-woodenness that plagued Gore.

I'm not sure any of those three are necessarily indicative of a societal revulsion against electing giving one party three consecutive terms in office.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm not sure any of those three are necessarily indicative of a societal revulsion against electing giving one party three consecutive terms in office.

Nicely done, and I agree with your conclusion that the evidence of such a inherent issue is, at most, very questionable.

[AENeuman]

Okay but let's take a look.



Kennedy vs Nixon was television's coming out party. I'd argue that wasn't as much about "we don't want a third Republican term" as "holy shit Nixon looks old and Kennedy looks young and vigorous which is what we want in our President with the Russians making noises."



LBJ is said to have remarked that "we've lost the South for a generation" after he signed the Civil Rights Act, and Nixon's successful run for the Presidency was predicated on the "Southern Strategy" - go get all those disaffected Southern Democrats and get 'em to vote Republican. Was that about "we don't want a third Democratic term"? I don't know. I mean, maybe you could make that argument, that it was pushback from a significant-enough part of the population that wasn't thrilled with civil rights. But I'm not sure that's symptomatic of Democratic fatigue as much as just the timing of the CRA vs the 1968 elections.



Reasonably sure that if there hadn't been a 1-2 punch of Bush conceding on tax cuts and a recession, he gets re-elected with ease. Remember, his approval rating was north of 90% in 1991, during the first Gulf War. Really not sure you can call that one "we don't like giving one party that long in office."



There's some debate, of course, over whether Bush "won" the 2000 election. I mean, that the election was even close enough for there to be debate is probably because Gore had all the charisma of a dessicated stick. There may have been some Clinton fatigue. Maybe whoever the Democrats nominate in 2000 fails to get to measure for new drapes. But wooden Gore versus charismatic Dubya is probably not the best measuring stick for whether people just don't like electing one party to 3+ terms in the White House.



There have been three other opportunities besides the anomaly you cite in the last 112+ years for the party controlling the White House to gain a third consecutive term. Harding won in a three-way contest, Kennedy beat Nixon, and Bush beat Gore. I mean, that's it. Those three and Carter are the only examples of an incumbent party failing to win a third term.

Harding was a member of the party out of power after the Great War, I already discussed the age-versus-youth bit that the televised debates contributed to 1968, and the charisma-versus-woodenness that plagued Gore.

I'm not sure any of those three are necessarily indicative of a societal revulsion against electing giving one party three consecutive terms in office.

Very interesting stuff. A few fireside thoughts.

There's something about the party in charge during war does not stay in power in peace. WW1, 2 (UK too), Vietnam, gulf war. Maybe it's the enviable post war economy slump...

New voters also have a big impact: women in 1920, poor minorities 1960. In fact Kennedy won because he got the young/under educated, poor, minority MALE vote. Not sure how many of those would be swayed by tv looks.

3rd party I think is the biggest factor. I think maybe bush and for sure gore would have won if not for a more far right/left anti-establishment candidate.

I agree with only going a far back as you did. From 1860-1920 the Republican Party was really two separate ideologies under a very big tent.

[JPhillips]

There have been three other opportunities besides the anomaly you cite in the last 112+ years for the party controlling the White House to gain a third consecutive term. Harding won in a three-way contest, Kennedy beat Nixon, and Bush beat Gore. I mean, that's it. Those three and Carter are the only examples of an incumbent party failing to win a third term.



I think our disagreement is really about the importance of campaigns. I've been swayed that campaigns don't do much and the fundamentals are more important in who wins. I do think likability is important, but that's about it.

As to the above, maybe I misunderstand, but what about 1968 and 2008? Those were years when the incumbent party lost the chance for a third term.

[molson]

I think the fact that Trump and Carson are the front-runners right now is ultimately more significant than historical trends.

I also think too much trend-worship can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Right now, the Republicans are super-vulnerable, and the Democrats are choosing not to take advantage, which I really think could lead to a very interesting change in the oval office.

[flere-imsaho]

Right now, the Republicans are super-vulnerable, and the Democrats are choosing not to take advantage

What should the Democrats be doing to take advantage?

[molson]

What should the Democrats be doing to take advantage?

This was one of the reasons given for why the Democratic field is so weak this year. Why everyone is stepping aside for a front-runner who is pretty unpopular with both sides, and who is very beatable. A solid electable Democrat shouldn't have any problem with Trump or Carson, but Clinton and Sanders could actually make it interesting.

[flere-imsaho]

So are you asserting that Clinton isn't a solid electable Democrat?

[albionmoonlight]

I don't know how much this matters, but if you were to take every candidate running from both parties and just ask "which of these people most looks like a person who would play the President in a movie," I think that O'Malley wins easily.

[lighthousekeeper]

I don't know how much this matters, but if you were to take every candidate running from both parties and just ask "which of these people most looks like a person who would play the President in a movie," I think that O'Malley wins easily.

that should really be the only criteria that matters.

[molson]

So are you asserting that Clinton isn't a solid electable Democrat?

Well, I'm voting for her (assuming no miraculous comebacks on the Republican side that encourage me to revisit someone who's under the radar in the single digits right now), but I do fear a Clinton nomination might lead to President Trump. I think there's a lot of people more liberal than me who really don't like her and might stay home, vote third party, or consider a Republican.

I just wish we had more of what we have on the Republican side, a bunch of different conceivably electable candidates. Instead it's just the extreme left guy and the capable mainstay who could be destroyed by scandal at any time. It feels that this should more be a golden age of electable Democrats and it would have been nice if this election could be a showcase of that. I get there's other considerations about not wanting to lose and not wanting to take on a Clinton, but it's just what I would prefer.

[gstelmack]

It could be fun to have a "order the candidates by how scared you'd be if they got elected" list. For me the high points would be:

Clinton
Trump
Carson

I'd vote for almost anybody from either party running against one of those 3.

[JPhillips]

After redistricting, the Democrats don't have a deep bench. Where are the candidates ready for a presidential election? Who could be running that isn't?

[Kodos]

After redistricting, the Democrats don't have a deep bench. Where are the candidates ready for a presidential election? Who could be running that isn't?

Al Gore?

Ted Cruz probably tops my list of scary candidates.


I'm liberal, so it's probably no surprise that I want Bernie, but I'll vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, I'm voting for her (assuming no miraculous comebacks on the Republican side that encourage me to revisit someone who's under the radar in the single digits right now), but I do fear a Clinton nomination might lead to President Trump.

Take this to the other thread if you want, but I'm not convinced Trump will win the GOP nomination.

I think there's a lot of people more liberal than me who really don't like her and might stay home, vote third party, or consider a Republican.

Fair enough. But is there a candidate out there who brings those demographics out to the polls while also running a solid campaign, raising a metric ton of money and holding onto Democratic centrists?

I just wish we had more of what we have on the Republican side, a bunch of different conceivably electable candidates.

A topic for the other thread, but this seems like an overly optimistic view of the GOP candidates. :D

Instead it's just the extreme left guy and the capable mainstay who could be destroyed by scandal at any time.

If Clinton was going to be destroyed by scandal, it would have happened by now. She's been in public life, on the national stage, for 25 years. She's survived Whitewater, Lewinsky, Benghazi, EmailGate and a veritable cottage industry set up specifically to slime her and Bill. What, conceivably, is going to sink her now?

It feels that this should more be a golden age of electable Democrats and it would have been nice if this election could be a showcase of that. I get there's other considerations about not wanting to lose and not wanting to take on a Clinton, but it's just what I would prefer.

It is what it is.

[BishopMVP]

After redistricting, the Democrats don't have a deep bench. Where are the candidates ready for a presidential election? Who could be running that isn't?Biden, Kristen Gillibrand, a number of governors. Cory Booker? Julian Castro? Deval Patrick (hahaha)? I get that many are hoping to inherit the Clinton apparatus instead of running against it, but I don't understand why one young politician who might not quite be ready isn't running to get their name out there and be considered a frontrunner for 2020 or 2024.

[JPhillips]

I get Castro or Patrick out of that list, but that just really proves the point that there aren't a lot of options. When Biden is on the list, the bench isn't deep.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Clinton was going to be destroyed by scandal, it would have happened by now.

This is a point I kinda touched on elsewhere last night. Not even the proverbial sex with a goat on the town square is going to send her supporters anywhere at this point. She probably has the most solid base of any candidate in either party.

[Surtt]

Biden, Kristen Gillibrand, a number of governors. Cory Booker? Julian Castro? Deval Patrick (hahaha)? I get that many are hoping to inherit the Clinton apparatus instead of running against it, but I don't understand why one young politician who might not quite be ready isn't running to get their name out there and be considered a frontrunner for 2020 or 2024.

No Elizabeth Warren?

[BishopMVP]

I get Castro or Patrick out of that list, but that just really proves the point that there aren't a lot of options. When Biden is on the list, the bench isn't deep.Do you know why I can name John Kasich, or Martin O'Malley, or Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz off the top of my head? Because they threw their hat in the ring, even if they're polling within the margin of error. Malloy, Hickenlooper, Warner, Kaine, Jay Nixon?, Cuomo all seem like additional potential candidates from the Senate/Governor sides. Not sure why you don't think Booker would benefit from a run. Shit, I'll throw in one more senator in Whitehouse from Rhode Island based on name alone :)

The "bench" isn't deep because Hillary has been sucking a lot of the attention and money away from the younger generation... and the one who did challenge her beat her. Even now you see Bernie Sanders getting a big surge from young/ABH voters - you really think one of the other people mentioned couldn't have gotten that segment, set themselves up as a go to political show voice, and a frontrunner for 2020 or 2024? Seems to make more sense than fighting with the other 15 people who all want to be Hillary's heir apparent.

[BishopMVP]

No Elizabeth Warren?She was already mentioned, and I agree with other people both that she (and Gillibrand) would cannibalize a lot of Hilary's support and thus are better positioned to wait her out and inherit that mantle, and that she's a much better fit in the Senate. Both as an advocate for her causes, and because I'm not sure how well she'd do in a presidential election or debate (re: the latter though, I personally disliked her attitude and approach in Mass, so I might be wrong.)

[stevew]

Hilary causes me to physically convulse when I see or hear her talk. I haven't decided if I'll support Biden in the general if he were to win. He has some really problematic votes over the years. I suspect it'll be another wasted vote for Stein for me.

[JPhillips]

Do you know why I can name John Kasich, or Martin O'Malley, or Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz off the top of my head? Because they threw their hat in the ring, even if they're polling within the margin of error. Malloy, Hickenlooper, Warner, Kaine, Jay Nixon?, Cuomo all seem like additional potential candidates from the Senate/Governor sides. Not sure why you don't think Booker would benefit from a run. Shit, I'll throw in one more senator in Whitehouse from Rhode Island based on name alone :)

The "bench" isn't deep because Hillary has been sucking a lot of the attention and money away from the younger generation... and the one who did challenge her beat her. Even now you see Bernie Sanders getting a big surge from young/ABH voters - you really think one of the other people mentioned couldn't have gotten that segment, set themselves up as a go to political show voice, and a frontrunner for 2020 or 2024? Seems to make more sense than fighting with the other 15 people who all want to be Hillary's heir apparent.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily saying nobody should have run, although I get the fear of burning bridges. I'm saying there's few people strong enough to make a serious run. O'Malley was supposed to be a strong contender and he can't break 5%. The Dem bench looks like the 2015 Reds bench.

[BishopMVP]

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily saying nobody should have run, although I get the fear of burning bridges. I'm saying there's few people strong enough to make a serious run. O'Malley was supposed to be a strong contender and he can't break 5%. The Dem bench looks like the 2015 Reds bench.But a lot of where that (perceived) bench comes from is a previous run or getting yourself on the talking head shows. Who are the Democrats people know? Hilary, Biden, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren? People are even mentioning Al Gore because nobody even knows who the younger Dems are, and I personally think a lot of that is due to Hilary's dominating presence at the top soaking up the media attention and money.

I also might be biased with living in Mass, but I feel the Republicans are also much more open to pulling in potential candidates from outside the political structure (Senate, Governors, Cabinet appointees), while the last Democratic one is probably Al Sharpton (I guess Wesley Clark ran in 2004 too). I do see that Lawrence Lessig is running - idk if he's viable, but I would've loved for him to be on that debate stage!

[JPhillips]

There's some truth to Hillary sucking the air. I think it's also more difficult when you've held the WH for two terms. The people that would get air time fighting the opposition aren't doing that when their party controls the presidency.

The general critique of not having a lot of visible Dems is dead on. Personally, I think the big problem is that the party doesn't stand for anything. What are Dems proposing and doing? Eerything is too focused on defending things from the GOP.

[SackAttack]

There's something about the party in charge during war does not stay in power in peace. WW1, 2 (UK too), Vietnam, gulf war. Maybe it's the enviable post war economy slump...

mmm, I think World War I was about 'holy shit the war is over now let's let our hair down.'

I'm not sure what the deal was with Truman's unpopularity after World War II. If Roosevelt doesn't die in his 4th term, I wonder if he gets re-elected to a 5th? The United States was the only significant functioning Western economy after World War II, though. I don't think the US saw post-war recession until the end of the Korean War. It took a while for Western Europe to find their feet again. Negative economics haven't dovetailed with wars ending in the United States all that often. Even the Great Depression took a decade after WWI to hit us. In between you had the Roaring 20s.

New voters also have a big impact: women in 1920, poor minorities 1960. In fact Kennedy won because he got the young/under educated, poor, minority MALE vote. Not sure how many of those would be swayed by tv looks.

Not sure I agree with you on minorities influencing the 1960 election. The Civil Rights Act wasn't signed into law until 1964, after Kennedy's assassination. The civil rights movement was in full swing by 1960, but Jim Crow was still very much alive, especially when it came to denying blacks the franchise.

I agree with only going a far back as you did. From 1860-1920 the Republican Party was really two separate ideologies under a very big tent.

Well, I mean, the Republican Party in 2015 is three separate ideologies under a shrinking tent, so make of that what you will.

I think our disagreement is really about the importance of campaigns. I've been swayed that campaigns don't do much and the fundamentals are more important in who wins. I do think likability is important, but that's about it.

As to the above, maybe I misunderstand, but what about 1968 and 2008? Those were years when the incumbent party lost the chance for a third term.

Yeah, 2008 is fair. I missed that one. But even if you ascribe that to Republican fatigue rather than Bush toxicity, that's still a really recent development and doesn't really fit the pattern established by the other scenarios I mentioned.

1968 I failed to mention in my summary, but I did discuss it in my blow-by-blow breakdown. That one was goofy because you had the guy who won the second term get assassinated and the guy who succeeded him pissed off an entire wing of the party by signing civil rights legislation, driving them into the arms of Nixon and his Southern Strategy.

But then you look at that and, as I ALSO mentioned earlier, Republicans had the White House nearly unbroken from 1968 to 1992. Only four years of a Democratic President in that span. So if you want to hold up 1968 as Democratic fatigue, you open yourself to having to answer the question: why did Republicans hold the White House for 20 of the next 24 years if third terms are such anathema?

[flere-imsaho]

The general critique of not having a lot of visible Dems is dead on. Personally, I think the big problem is that the party doesn't stand for anything.

I'd agree with this. The current party are so concerned with avoiding gaffes and triangulating things every which way to Sunday that most of them forgot they want to stand for anything. It's what makes Warren & Sanders seem so unique, when in reality they should be part of a bigger and more robust group.

[Ben E Lou]

So what IS the deal with the post-debate polls? Sanders supporters spamming? CNN really has pro-Clinton agenda? Sanders supporters are making some pretty serious claims. What's the reality?

[QuikSand]

Best overall analysis I've read is here:

Did the Media Get the Democratic Debate Wrong? - The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/did-the-media-get-the-democratic-debate-wrong)

Basically, my thumbnail: Sure, the online "polls" tend toward the excitable, so they'll go for Sanders, so we mostly discount that. But hands-on focus groups back that up, and that should be taken more seriously, suggesting there's some broader sentiment that "solid, electable, professional, clinical" might score debate points with analysts but not with voters right now, for whatever reason.

I personally watched with great interest in Sanders' ability to appear "presidential," but I admit my own bias that I think that's his weakness (I personally don't think he passes the eye test there). So, when he waves his arms and talks about wealth inequality, I see him failing, but viewers might be seeing him succeeding by being passionate and articulate. I think that might be a lot of the disconnect, writ large. Analysts already baked in much of the Sanders show, but discounted the fact that tons of people might have actually been seeing him for the first time (at least in any depth whatsoever) and could have liked what they saw in stuff that the talking heads considered inconsequential.

[QuikSand]

I'm also in a weird spot in this election. Even though I have no chance of affecting the outcome of anything (I'm not a primary voter, and my state will not be a swing state in the general election) I still take my vote seriously. My vote actually doesn't county for much of anything except the occasional ballot issue - my district is deeply one-party in every respect, though the pre-destined winning party varies based on which level of gerrymandering I'm a victim of.

With the wide array of possible pairings we could see from these two deeply flawed parties and the primary voters and superdelegates who decide this stuff, I have almost no clue what box I'll end up checking come November 2016.

[cuervo72]

It's almost too bad we can't have a domestic president and a foreign president.

"Bernie, you handle things here. Hillary, you handle international affairs and the military. What? No, no it's not the same as being Secretary of State, it's totally different."

[QuikSand]

Good heavens, though, imagine the pairings! Domestic Sanders, Foreign Trump? Domestic Cruz, Foreign Webb?

[albionmoonlight]

It seems like Trump and Sanders out-polling the expert's view of where they should be might just be the voters responding to years of conditioning.

The political insiders/experts know that a lot of the political fights in this country boil down to "In my opinion, my opponent's economic plan will lead to slightly lower overall growth than mine. Further, his plan benefits special interests more closely aligned with his party at the expense of special interests more closely aligned with my party."

But that is not what they've been telling the voters. Even as the major candidates themselves have managed to avoid massive hyperbole, the party outreach has been off the rails for a while. Every fundraising email I get predicts some version of the end of America as I know it if the other side wins. Both parties are guilty of this. It isn't a debate over a few percentage points on marginal tax rates. It is, without exaggeration, life and death. Every election.

So, go figure, we've finally decided to support candidates who seem to get it. Whose rhetoric matches the rhetoric that we've been conditioned to accept over the last decade or so.

[Sun Tzu]

Damn. A good majority of you guys are really out of touch with the under 30 generation.

Shocker, right?

[albionmoonlight]

Damn. A good majority of you guys are really out of touch with the under 30 generation.

Shocker, right?

What am I missing, other than your annoying insistence of staying on my lawn despite my requests otherwise?

[molson]

Sun Tzu just heard of Bernie Sanders last month and now he thinks he's a political expert and everyone here is beneath him. Vintage Sun Tzu

[Dutch]

Damn. A good majority of you guys are really out of touch with the under 30 generation.

Shocker, right?

Or maybe your 20-somethings you associate with are out of touch with the over-30 generation?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Damn. A good majority of you guys are really out of touch with the under 30 generation. Shocker, right?

This election is certainly a prime example of why 30 -- minimum -- should probably be the voting age.

[PilotMan]

Sanders is what he is, and what he's only ever been this entire election. First, he is a left alternative that will both challenge Clinton on her platform. Next, he is supposed to challenge her so she gets sharp and strong on the campaign trail for the general. Third, he allows her to move to the left, but still look much more center and the only center left option for the left leaning independents. There are a number of cognitive techniques in play that are designed to be able to "sell" Clinton to the masses better. That's what Sanders is, it's all Sanders is.

[lighthousekeeper]

This election is certainly a prime example of why 30 -- minimum -- should probably be the voting age.

ewww. if that happened, we'd get all the old pervs voting palin into office.

i'd much rather see 60 max (after that the hearts just seem to calcify). don't let people vote if they won't live to see the fruits of the term. don't old folks just vote out of spite to pick the candidate that will fuck up the world most for the young'uns?