The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Romulan Republic]

You may not personally be lying, you may just be mistaken, or more charitably exaggerating facts, but I call that narrative about race a lie because it has been propagated by people who know better (or should).

While it is fair to say that Clinton over all did better among non-white (primarily among black) voters, and Sanders had a lot of support from white voters, this has been exaggerated, overplayed and oversimplified to the point where I feel that it became, for some, a way of discrediting Sanders, of implicitly suggesting that his campaign and supporters were racist, that it was just the white people trying to keep minorities from being heard.

Sanders' support is heaviest among young voters, yes. This is probably the clearest demographic split of the primary. That's why it was specifically the racial element that I called a lie. While Sanders lost the black vote badly, there is some evidence that he did considerably better with other minority demographics, particular, again, young voters (as I recall, he roughly tied Clinton with young black voters, even, in at least some areas). Its just that with the exception of Latinos, no other minority racial group in America is nearly as big as the black vote.

Also, it should be noted that "young" is a relative term. Sanders wasn't just winning kids fresh out of high school who were eligible to vote for the first time. He was in the lead more or less up until you got to middle aged voters and older.

I also think its a mistake to lump the black and latino vote together, because unless I'm very much mistaken, Clinton pretty clearly did substantially better with the former than the latter. Though I admit I haven't looked at the relative numbers in every state, so I may be in error.

Actually, while many of the issues are very different, the result of the primary in this respect mirrors the Brexit results- the older generations shutting down the younger, more progressive generations in a relatively close race.

I'll also add that the Sanders disadvantage in primaries is exaggerated as well, in my opinion.

List of primaries Sanders won:

New Hampshire
Vermont
Oklahoma
Democrats Abroad (I'm particularly proud of this one, because I voted for Sanders in it )
Michigan
Wisconsin
Rhode Island
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Montana

Illinois, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Kentucky were also really, really close. I still maintain that Massachusetts would have gone to Bernie had Elizabeth Warren backed him before Super Tuesday.

So why does this matter? After all, as you said, he lost in the end.

Well, the issues and divides that drove this primary aren't going away. An accurate understanding of what happened now is important when it comes to what direction the Democratic Party takes in the future. Sanders lost. But he represented, at least, a very large minority of the Democratic Party and Left-leaning independents (maybe a majority when you factor in all the independents who couldn't vote in closed primaries?) which is likely to grow in the future since its support is predominantly among the (relatively) young. It is not, therefore, a group that the Democratic leadership can in any way ignore, any more than they could ignore the black vote or the latino vote or the womens' vote (not that those groups vote homogeneously either). I realize that I have some bias here, but I think that this is true regardless of what ones' personal preferences are.

As to your jabs about my taking too long to admit Sanders' defeat, I'll say what I believe I said pretty consistently from March-June- it was unlikely but possible for him to win. That was objectively true. I also feel that he was at least arguably justified in continuing his campaign for the Presidency up until California, and staying in until after DC as a matter of principle. While I would like him to get out now, I think its important that the transition to the general election happens in a way which will ensure the maximum number of his supporters come over to Clinton- which means giving them something besides just "not Trump" to vote for. "Not Trump" should be enough, but the fact is that for some people it isn't.

And really, is it so unreasonable? Clinton won the primary, sure. She should be the main voice shaping the direction of the Democratic Party for the time being. However, she and her loyalists should not be the only voice. Unity, especially in a large party, inherently entails compromise. I'm not saying that Clinton should give us everything. I'm not even saying she necessarily has to give us anything to win, though I doubt that it would hurt. I'm saying that to win by as much as possible, and leave the party in a strong place going forward, she needs to lead a Democratic Party that is responsive, welcoming, and respectful to all its constituent factions.

I listed four specific points I'd like to see earlier, which I will repeat here:

A Progressive VP, or at least one not part of the Wall Street insider crowd.
A position of some influence for Sanders in the DNC.
15 an hour.
Fracking ban.

Note that I picked the last two, in part, specifically because they would be relatively minor concessions from Clinton's own stances. Though it doesn't have to be those, of course.

[The Romulan Republic]

I just want to say, since it wasn't sufficiently clear above, that I apologize if I gave the impression (though I don't believe it was my intent) that I was calling you a liar. I believe that you were echoing a narrative which has been dishonestly advanced by some, but as far as I know you yourself are sincere in you beliefs. I know that I would be offended if someone unfairly levelled such an accusation against me, so fair's fair.

I would also like to point out an example which is indicative of what I am talking about here, and which I can't believe I forgot to post before, of how the situation with Sanders supporters is not as simple as it being a bunch angry, immature kids in their 20s who will eventually grow up and stop being such progressives.

Not long ago, Democratic Congresswoman and Sanders supporter Tulsi Gabbard stated that she was not ready to back Clinton.

Tulsi Gabbard is not an immature college kid. She is also not an independent, white, or male- the demographics usually associated with Sanders supporters. She is a 35 year old Democratic Congresswoman, former Vice Chair of the DNC, and veteran with a degree in Business Administration. She is, by education, political allegiance, and to some extent demographics, the kind of person you'd expect to back Clinton.

And yet, she refused to back Clinton.

Now, I think that she was wrong to do that. I lost a lot of respect for her when she did that, and hope that she modifies her position in time. But while it is, ultimately, just one person, it does suggest, to me at least, that maybe this situation is a bit more complicated than you're giving it credit for.

[FireNexus]

New Hampshire
Vermont
Oklahoma
Democrats Abroad (I'm particularly proud of this one, because I voted for Sanders in it )
Michigan
Wisconsin
Rhode Island
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Montana

STATE WHITE BLACK HISP./ LATINO ASIAN/ OTHER OUTCOME
New Hampshire 93 2 1 4 Sanders +22
Vermont 95 1 0 3 Sanders +72
Oklahoma 74 14 4 9 Sanders +10
Michigan 68 23 3 6 Sanders +2
Wisconsin 83 10 3 4 Sanders +14
Rhode Island 79 9 8 4 Sanders +11.7
Indiana 76 13 8 3 Sanders +5.0
West Virginia 88 5 5 3 Sanders +15.4
Oregon 87 1 4 7 Sanders +10.2
Montana 82 4 6 9 Sanders +6.4



Damn, I wonder what all of those but Michigan have in common?

It's not a dishonest narrative, if Sanders primary victories are all but one in states that are SIGNIFICANTLY whiter than the national average. You're a dolt. Even your attempts to show how something is untrue indirectly prove it. I'm going to watch Game of Thrones, and stop arguing with the confidently stupid. Have a good evening.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, there appears to be a misunderstanding.

I did not post the list of Sanders primary wins to disprove the race narrative, so much as to disprove the "Sanders can't win primaries" narrative.

Yes, a lot of those states are heavily white (though I'd like you to back up the claim that Democrats Abroad is). And no one is arguing that over all, Sanders did relatively well with white voters.

What I am questioning, among other things, is the over simplicity of the "Sanders did badly with non-white voters" narrative, which is actually more "Sanders did badly with black voters and older voters".

But if you need to cherry pick that one part of my posts as an excuse to passive-aggressively ignore everything else I posted, knock yourself out. I'm tired of this argument anyway.

[Gaidin]

Ah, there appears to be a misunderstanding.

I did not post the list of Sanders primary wins to disprove the race narrative, so much as to disprove the "Sanders can't win primaries" narrative.

Was there ever a "Sanders Can't Win Primaries" narrative? I only ever really noticed a "Sanders Isn't Going to Win THE Primary" narrative going against you. And, well, look what happened.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, there appears to be a misunderstanding.

I did not post the list of Sanders primary wins to disprove the race narrative, so much as to disprove the "Sanders can't win primaries" narrative.

Was there ever a "Sanders Can't Win Primaries" narrative? I only ever really noticed a "Sanders Isn't Going to Win THE Primary" narrative going against you. And, well, look what happened.

I've seen people play up the whole thing about Sanders doing better in caucuses thing, with the implication being that he had trouble winning in a fair contest where the outcome is determined by popular vote.

This is what I was responding to from FireNexus, at least in part:

The states he won were whiter than average. The ones that weren't were caucuses, and the beauty contest primaries plus the ND/SD split showed that Sanders massively overperformed in caucuses.

[FireNexus]

I stated that whiteness was a predictor of his primary wins in either the same post or an adjacent one. You went ahead and proved it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I stated that whiteness was a predictor of his primary wins in either the same post or an adjacent one. You went ahead and proved it.

It is one of a number of factors.

I simply think some people place too much emphasis on race as a determining factor in the primary, and oversimplify the complex demographic divides (for example, the age split often overriding the racial divide).

[maraxus2]

I stated that whiteness was a predictor of his primary wins in either the same post or an adjacent one. You went ahead and proved it.

It is one of a number of factors.

I simply think some people place too much emphasis on race as a determining factor in the primary, and oversimplify the complex demographic divides (for example, the age split often overriding the racial divide).

It's one of the most conspicuous though. Young people didn't vote in particularly large numbers relative to 2008. That's why Bernie's utter failure to win any votes among People of Color over 30 is so obvious.

Let us also dispense with the idea that this was a close primary. It wasn't. Bernie wound up getting around 40% of the primary vote. Substantial, but nowhere near the closeness his more zealous supporters want to portray. His margin almost certainly would have been lower had we not had any caucuses, and he'd have been wiped out if the first three primaries were in any mid-size diverse states. He'd never have gotten off the ground if the first three states were, say, PA, NC, and MI, rather than IA, NH, and SC, the first two of which are among the whitest states in the nation.

[The Romulan Republic]

I stated that whiteness was a predictor of his primary wins in either the same post or an adjacent one. You went ahead and proved it.

It is one of a number of factors.

I simply think some people place too much emphasis on race as a determining factor in the primary, and oversimplify the complex demographic divides (for example, the age split often overriding the racial divide).

It's one of the most conspicuous though. Young people didn't vote in particularly large numbers relative to 2008. That's why Bernie's utter failure to win any votes among People of Color over 30 is so obvious.

Let us also dispense with the idea that this was a close primary. It wasn't. Bernie wound up getting around 40% of the primary vote. Substantial, but nowhere near the closeness his more zealous supporters want to portray. His margin almost certainly would have been lower had we not had any caucuses, and he'd have been wiped out if the first three primaries were in any mid-size diverse states. He'd never have gotten off the ground if the first three states were, say, PA, NC, and MI, rather than IA, NH, and SC, the first two of which are among the whitest states in the nation.

Nitpick, but you left Nevada out of your first states list (its before SC).

[Grumman]

The people who are so angry at the nomination of Clinton will be cheering to nominate someone just like her in thirty years.

Speak for yourself. Hillary and Trump are both openly in favour of removing people's constitutional rights without due process. That makes them both either too stupid or too evil to be trusted with the Presidency.

[Dalton]

Simmer down.

This thread is rapidly approaching shitshow territory again. Funnily enough it seems that in every instance TRR is involved. So let's all take a breath and calm it down.

[Maelstrom]

Totally anecdotal I know, but my gf, black and 38, is an ardent Bernie supporter. In fact, almost everyone I know was for Bernie. But, like minded individuals tend to associate with like minded individuals, and so, sadly, I still expect my state to go Trump. Me living in Kansas and all.

[The Romulan Republic]

A fairly lengthy breakdown of Democratic VP prospects, both likely and unlikely:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... vp-n598011

With a month to go until the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton's campaign is weighing a slate of potential running mates, conducting interviews with candidates and in many cases requesting personal financial and medical information.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, a well-liked swing state lawmaker who was a finalist on Barack Obama's vice presidential shortlist in 2008, has emerged as an early frontrunner for the job. Also under consideration are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Housing Secretary Julian Castro. But officials with knowledge of the process say that the campaign is sifting through an even longer list, pondering some outside-the-box prospects as well as more widely-circulated names like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Labor Secretary Tom Perez.

Geography and demographics are important - particularly as Democrats eye the possibility of taking control of the Senate, where they covet having a majority in place for the next administration's crucial first 100 days. But Democrats familiar with the process say that the most important criteria for Clinton is finding a compatible partner whom she likes and trusts - and who is ready to step into the top job.

Here is a list of each potential candidate and what we know:

TOP TIER

Tim Kaine

A personable former governor, Kaine is viewed as a solid and competent pick with the experience and temperament to pass the commander-in-chief test - a significant factor in Clinton's decision. He speaks fluent Spanish, governed a purple state and has foreign policy chops from his years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A past chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he also knows the ins and outs of party fundraising and political strategy. A former missionary who attends a black church and was one of Clinton's earliest endorsers, Kaine is also one of only about 20 people in American history to have served as mayor, governor, and senator. Another plus: Virginia has a Democratic governor who would appoint his replacement, so his departure from the Senate wouldn't be a net loss for the party. On the other hand, some in the Clinton camp worry he doesn't have the "zing" to excite voters.

Elizabeth Warren

If Clinton determines that she needs to mollify disgruntled Bernie Sanders fans and motivate younger and more progressive voters, Warren would be an obvious choice. Sources indicate that she's definitely on the list, though the arguments against her are also compelling. 1) A all-female ticket could introduce some risk; 2) she'd almost certainly be replaced -- in the short term -- by an appointee of a Republican governor; and 3) she doesn't have a long-standing personal relationship with Clinton, although she's clearly filling the role of a top surrogate now. Another factor is that Clinton's team believes that Warren is already an effective attacker of Trump from her current perch. With Warren poised to have even more influence in the next Senate, she may ultimately prefer to stay there.

PlayElizabeth Warren to campaign with Hillary Clinton Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
Elizabeth Warren to campaign with Hillary Clinton 1:57
Sherrod Brown

Brown's biggest drawback is that his departure from the Senate would put a swing state Senate seat back into Republican hands. Particularly with Florida looking much more competitive now that Marco Rubio is running for re-election, Clinton would have to weigh whether the advantages of putting someone on the ticket from swing state Ohio outweighs the risks of dropping a Senate seat there and jeopardizing a Democratic takeover. That said, Clintonworld has been impressed with Brown as a surrogate so far, and he's a progressive who could fire up base voters.

IN THE HUNT

Cory Booker

Booker is young, dynamic and African-American. But he's less experienced than many of the other picks, with less than three years under his belt in the Senate. He has a strong personal story to tell; he's a former Stanford football player-turned Rhodes Scholar-turned Newark mayor-turned U.S. senator. But his strong ties to Wall Street could alienate progressives already wary of Clinton's relationship with the banks. And, like Brown and Warren, Democrats would lose a Senate seat to a Republican appointment if Booker gives it up. Still, he's impressed Clinton and her aides with the passion and energy he brought to campaigning for her in Iowa.

Julian Castro

The Housing and Urban Development Secretary is telegenic and Hispanic, and he's had a good rapport with Clinton when they've been together on the stump. But his lack of experience - which detractors say shone clearly through during his handling of a fight with the left on mortgage policy - could lead critics to label him a lightweight, and it's not clear that Clinton's team thinks he's ready for the job.

Tom Perez

Clinton is said to like his "fire" on the trail, and he's a Latino progressive who could mobilize some key constituencies. But, as with Castro and Booker, experience could be a problem for a man who was still only a local lawmaker only a few years ago. That said, his tenure heading the Labor Department, and earlier at as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, has received glowing reviews from many Democrats and labor union officials.

Xavier Becerra

Becerra has clearly demonstrated his willingness to be Clinton's running mate. He's the highest-ranking Latino in the House of Representatives and has been a reliable Clinton ally. But he's got little in the way of foreign policy chops, and few outside Washington know who he is.

ON THE BUBBLE

Al Franken

If Clinton's team likes the snarky attack-dog style of Elizabeth Warren but thinks the Massachusetts senator is too risky, Franken could be an outside-the-box alternative. The Minnesota progressive has policy chops that would please the Sanders crowd, and his "Saturday Night Live" background could come in handy countering Donald Trump's jabs with comedic routines of his own. And, like Kaine, his departure wouldn't forfeit a Senate seat. But if Clinton's painting herself as the serious choice in the race, is America ready for a former "SNL" comedian to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Shaun Donovan

The former HUD secretary and current budget director has good credentials on the economy - an area of policy ground where Trump has tended to lead Clinton in head-to-head polls. But it's a tough sell to say that a largely unknown housing and budget expert - who hasn't ever been elected to any political office - should be the second in command of the United States.

Mike Mullen

The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a dark horse pick who could bring military and foreign policy credentials to the table. He and Clinton worked together during her tenure as Secretary of State, and he was once vetted by Michael Bloomberg's team, so he's not a total novice to the process. But it's not clear that Clinton wants to double down on foreign policy rather than finding a more well-rounded or well-known pick.

[Mr Bean]

I'm not buying the lack experience argument for her VP choice in the day and age when Secretary Clinton is running against Donald Trump.

[Dalton]

Given how Warren has been campaigning with Hillary on the trail, and pretty damn strongly too especially hitting Donny Jingles, I'd put a high probability on her.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I'm leaning that way myself. I could be wrong, of course, but given how Warren's name is reportedly near the top of the list (and only Tim Kaine seems to be getting equal or greater VP buzz right now), their campaigning together definitely looks like Clinton is leaning toward picking her. Maybe this is a sort of "trial run" of Warren as VP candidate before Clinton makes the final pick/announcement?

[Elheru Aran]

OK so we have a list for Clinton... is there *any* idea whatsoever as to who Donald Trump is considering for VP?

The only thing I've heard is that there is apparently a committee giving him suggestions, which Ben Carson is part of, and Carson has already said he's not on the list. Ted Cruz has come up as a vague suggestion here and there, but I suspect he and Trump probably loathe each other too much to work together, and the rest of the Republican Party has no love for Cruz either.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I think there was a rumour a while back that he'd pick his daughter.

But yeah, Donald doesn't seem to be doing much for a presumptive nominee. Does he think he can just coast to the Presidency?

[Crossroads Inc.]

At this point, I don't think anyone can truly say what The Donald is thinking...
If I had to guess I would say deep down he doesn't really care, he may know he hasn't a prayer of winning, and is just coasting along.
In the outside... He probably doesn't want a VP, think about it, a VP will draw attention away from him! He will have to (gasp) SHARE the spotlight with someone else!!!

He will most likely put it off as long as possible as long as he can help it. It may not be till after the convention that he is forced to pick one.

[Alferd Packer]

Given how Warren has been campaigning with Hillary on the trail, and pretty damn strongly too especially hitting Donny Jingles, I'd put a high probability on her.

Would she even accept? At least in the Senate, she can get something done. As John Nance Garner famously said, the vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of piss. I suspect it'll be Kaine, as he locks up a purple state, will be able to campaign in Spanish (allowing him to shore up the western US), and is an experienced politician. Also, he's young enough that he can run in 2024 if he so desires. Does his perceived level of 'zing' really matter?

[Elheru Aran]

Given how Warren has been campaigning with Hillary on the trail, and pretty damn strongly too especially hitting Donny Jingles, I'd put a high probability on her.

Would she even accept? At least in the Senate, she can get something done. As John Nance Garner famously said, the vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of piss. I suspect it'll be Kaine, as he locks up a purple state, will be able to campaign in Spanish (allowing him to shore up the western US), and is an experienced politician. Also, he's young enough that he can run in 2024 if he so desires. Does his perceived level of 'zing' really matter?

The thing about Warren though is that she's made a lot of press in her time, and she's viewed as probably one of the leading politicians in the US right now apart from her gender (but the gender thing doesn't hurt either). Kaine on the other hand, not a whole lot of people know about.

Clinton can either go with a highly visible pick, a solid but inconspicuous politician, or a doormat. If she goes with a doormat, that makes her look like an aspiring dictator; if she picks a solid-but-inconspicuous pol, Trump and Fox News will be all 'who the hell is this guy and why should we care'; and so Warren has her appeal, if only to make people sit up and take notice.

[Thanas]

Warren would also be a clear signal that she does not intend to govern from the right. And a VP can get things done if he/she has his own portfolio.

That said, Warren is a pick that signals that the divisions are real and that there will be a huge fight. Which might not be the message Hillary wants to sent, not if she can win on being "not donald trump and not insane".

[Gaidin]

OK so we have a list for Clinton... is there *any* idea whatsoever as to who Donald Trump is considering for VP?

The only thing I've heard is that there is apparently a committee giving him suggestions, which Ben Carson is part of, and Carson has already said he's not on the list. Ted Cruz has come up as a vague suggestion here and there, but I suspect he and Trump probably loathe each other too much to work together, and the rest of the Republican Party has no love for Cruz either.

I thought his biggest problem is that he has to convince people instead of vice versa.

[Elheru Aran]

Warren would also be a clear signal that she does not intend to govern from the right. And a VP can get things done if he/she has his own portfolio.

That said, Warren is a pick that signals that the divisions are real and that there will be a huge fight. Which might not be the message Hillary wants to sent, not if she can win on being "not donald trump and not insane".

Yeah, picking Warren would be throwing down a major gauntlet, and since she's more or less beat Bernie to the nomination, she's probably going to follow her usual pattern and start tacking towards center-left. That doesn't necessarily disqualify Warren, but it does make her a little less likely.

Kaine is possible, but he lacks name recognition to some degree (at least, this campaign was the first I'd ever heard tell of him). Of course, I don't follow politics terribly closely, so it's possible that he might be more recognizable to others.

I have no idea who Sherrod Brown is as well. A Senator from Ohio, apparently. *shrugs*

Cory Booker... now I know that name, he's made a few waves. But he's said he's not being vetted for the role, so I suspect he's not on the list.

Castro, Perez and Becarra... about the main reason, frankly, that they'd be picked is that they're Latino. Apart from Becarra they don't have much political experience.

Al Franken would be genuinely interesting, and it's not like actors haven't entered politics before, but I think he's a little too outside the lines for Clinton.

No comment on the rest; again, don't know anything about them, other than Mullen is former military, and there's a lot of those floating around.

Frankly, Warren is the most visible option, potentially the most likely, but Kaine would be a safer option in many ways. It's hard to say right now how it's going to go down.