The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders ought to be doing better than that with black voters, and I suspect he will (South Carolina was expected to be a very strong state for Clinton and Sanders has been gathering black endorsements lately, though perhaps too late to cause much of a shift in South Carolina). However, I don't see that its necessary to actually win the majority of the black vote or the South to win the primary, if you do well enough elsewhere.

As to Massachusetts, we'll see. I agree that a loss their would be very bad (though in the end, one state is only one state), but I also think one poll giving Clinton a five percent lead is hardly conclusive.

Also, not all Democratic contests are proportional (California, I believe, is a massive late one that's winner take all). Which incidentally means that in a close primary, California will basically pick the winner.

Edit: At the end of the day, I'm going to try not to draw any conclusions about the result until it is final. This whole election has already been anything but predictable.

[Omega18]

As to Massachusetts, we'll see. I agree that a loss their would be very bad (though in the end, one state is only one state), but I also think one poll giving Clinton a five percent lead is hardly conclusive.

The problem is Sanders needs to be winning Massachusetts state by 10+ points to realistically come into the nomination with a delegate lead, and that was assuming results more favorable for Sanders than what now seems to be realistic in the South. A for instance very narrow win for Sanders in Massachusetts simply is not close to good enough.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... se-states/

Also, not all Democratic contests are proportional (California, I believe, is a massive late one that's winner take all). Which incidentally means that in a close primary, California will basically pick the winner.

You're simply utterly factually mistaken here about those late states including California. All of them remain proportional with no winner takes all for the Democratic Primaries in contrast to the Republican ones.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CA-D

All Hillary has to do is get at least 15% of the vote to get delegates in California for instance, and realistically she will obviously do much better than that in plausible scenarios. There are also heavily African-American Congressional districts that you can now clearly absolutely expect her to win in California, which means additional delegates. The basic point is its all about margin of victory with Hillary getting too much of a lead soon making it realistically impossible for Sanders to catch up.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps I was misinformed about California, etc. Conceded.

But if all contests are proportional, that could actually help Sanders, because even in a loss he can gain some delegates. Though of course it works the other way around as well.

And frankly, I find the assumption that all heavily black areas can be assumed to vote for Clinton because black voters in South Carolina did overly simplistic bordering on racist. Black Americans are not a hive mind, and Sanders is sometimes seen doing better with younger black voters, for example.

[Soontir C'boath]

As long as Sanders fight to the end, I will be happy. Even then and if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I do wonder what her tune will be once she guns for the general. After all, it's not as if Obama kept his promises and for that matter purposely changed his tune on various things he wanted done.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think from Clinton's history its pretty safe to bet that she will swing hard to the Right once she gets the nomination.

No principles from that one.

[Simon_Jester]

The flip side of this is that for all I know,Clinton might well swing back to the left with the election safely won; perhaps she's too unprincipled to stay bought.

[Yes I'm being somewhat facetious]

More generally, I think that if Clinton wins, she probably won't be actively worse than Obama. She may in some respects be better, because she isn't going to be entering public office with fantasies of being "the great uniter" of our time. She's been spat on by the Republican establishment enough times that I doubt she has any illusions about their willingness to work with her.

I think both Clinton and Sanders have some significant, nontrivial drawbacks as potential candidates. Their strengths are rather different- Clinton's strengths come from her own political skill, while Sanders' are coming from his ideals.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, looks like Clinton's gone below 75% on CNN, so that's something. Still a bad night for Sanders, but not quite as bad as some earlier numbers suggested, and it isn't all counted yet.

I've actually noticed that this seems to be a bit of a pattern- the early results tend to look better for Clinton than the final results.

Edits: Still, its over 70% in now, so I doubt its going to be much better than 70/30 in Clinton's favour, if that.

[Omega18]

With 98.6% of the vote in South Carolina in, its still a 47.6% margin in favor of Hillary, at 73.5% to 25.9% so very much an epic landslide.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its a good night for Hillary, no doubt about that.

What bothers me is people treating it like it means the election is effectively over tonight.

Its a good night for her, but its still just one bloody state.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Bern was giving a fine speech from Minnesota, until CNN cut him off.

[cosmicalstorm]

What is this "bloc"



Are they going to continue releasing these mails forever?

[cosmicalstorm]

Snowden is big on Twitter, funny description.

[Purple]

Random question. If for what ever reason sanders gets cheated out of the nomination (and by this I literally mean cheated out, as in the stuff that might happen to Trump where he wins but the final committee decides against him anyway) do you think his supporters might vote Trump in protest?

[Welf]

I expect the massive support of blacks for Clinton will make for a very ugly campaign in a Trump vs Clinton election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Random question. If for what ever reason sanders gets cheated out of the nomination (and by this I literally mean cheated out, as in the stuff that might happen to Trump where he wins but the final committee decides against him anyway) do you think his supporters might vote Trump in protest?

Some probably would.

Far more, I suspect, would just not vote, go third party/independent, or write in Sanders in protest. Their'd probably also be a push to get Sanders to run as an independent, though he's indicated he won't.

And some, like myself, would suck it up and vote for Clinton if that's what it takes to keep someone like Trump from becoming President.

[Simon_Jester]

I like to think Sanders would have the consistency with his own values to endorse Clinton should Clinton win. This is NOT a good election cycle for the Democratic electorate to be split in the face of what we may well be seeing out of the Republican side of the line.

Not if we treat elections like things that matter, and not just as opportunities to sulk.

The mere fact that Sanders' candidacy is netting double-digit support even in his most disadvantageous states should be enough to send a fairly clear message to the Democratic party that there is a significant fraction of American voters who want the Democrats to be, oh, somewhere left of the 1992 Republican platform.

[The Romulan Republic]

I fully expect that Sanders will endorse and campaign for Clinton if she gets the nomination.

Edit: I'm actually less confident of the reverse, though I might be being unfair to Clinton on that score.

[Raw Shark]

They both would. It's the classy and strategic thing to do. Nobody in this election is a big enough ass, and not invested enough in a political career, to deny that courtesy to the rival and the party except maybe The Donald.

[jwl]

Didn't Carson also indicate he would go independent if he didn't think he was being treated fairly by the party (and on that note, might Cruz's behaviour in New Hampshire give him excuse he might need)?

[Raw Shark]

Sorry if I wasn't clear; by "this election," I initially meant the Democratic primary, but walked away from the computer and then confused it by bringing Don in. I make no attempts to plumb the depths of other Republicans' asses. We have avid spelunkers for that.

[Starglider]

The mere fact that Sanders' candidacy is netting double-digit support even in his most disadvantageous states should be enough to send a fairly clear message to the Democratic party that there is a significant fraction of American voters who want the Democrats to be, oh, somewhere left of the 1992 Republican platform.

Those voters are only relevant if they are seriously threatening to abstein from voting (or vote for a minor party which is effectively the same thing in the US). As per Hotelling's law, if the base can be taken for granted then the major parties will end up almost next to each other on the issues, close to the median point where the most voters are attracted. If left wing voters always voted Democrat and right wing voters always voted Republican then this point would track the median political view of the population fairly closely (at least in the historical view, obviously your view may differ if you are on the ground at the time, emotionally comitted to the issues and full of perception biases). The Republicans appearing to be significantly right of center strongly suggests that they are more worried about far-right voters giving up on the Republicans than the Democrats are of losing their base. This is a pretty common observation; what is less often said is that it is a rational strategy for extremists (of any stripe) to sit out one election and have their major party lose, if it forces a movement in their direction to regain their favour in the next election. Assuming of course that they still capture enough of the population for an outright win, and that the opposing party cannot move towards the center without losing their own base.

From a purely ideological viewpointm Sanders over Clinton would definitely lose some centerist voters to the Republicans. Naturally his supporters argue that (a) increased turnout of the Democrat base would outweigh that (dubious, given his poor popularity with minorities and general willingness of Sanders supports to vote for Clinton if necessary) and (b) his personal appeal as a presidential candidate will allow him to win more votes than Clinton against the probable Republican candidates (fair, I think).

[Soontir C'boath]

In DNC news, Tulsi Gabbard resigns as vice chair and supports Sanders.

Tulsi Gabbard backs Sanders
By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI | 02/28/16 10:21 AM EST

CHICAGO — Bernie Sanders got his highest-profile congressional endorsement yet on Sunday morning, as Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard announced her resignation from her post as a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee to back the Vermont senator in his presidential bid.
“I have taken my responsibilities as an officer of the DNC seriously, and respected the need to stay neutral in our primaries. However, after much thought and consideration, I’ve decided I cannot remain neutral and sit on the sidelines any longer,” Gabbard wrote in an email to her fellow DNC officers, obtained by POLITICO.
Story Continued Below
“There is a clear contrast between our two candidates with regard to my strong belief that we must end the interventionist, regime change policies that have cost us so much. This is not just another ‘issue.’ This is THE issue, and it’s deeply personal to me. This is why I’ve decided to resign as Vice Chair of the DNC so that I can support Bernie Sanders in his efforts to earn the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential race.
The move was first announced on Meet The Press, where Gabbard told moderator Chuck Todd, “As a veteran and as a soldier I’ve seen firsthand the true cost of war. I served in a medical unit during my first deployment, where every single day I saw firsthand the very high human cost of that war. I see it in my friends who now, a decade after we've come home, are still struggling to get out of a black hole. I think it's most important for us, as we look at our choices as to who our next commander in chief will be, is to recognize the necessity to have a commander in chief who has foresight, exercises good judgment, who looks beyond the consequences, looks at the consequences of the actions they're looking to take, before they take those actions, so we don't continue to find ourselves in these failures that have resulted in chaos in the Middle East and so much loss of life."
Gabbard is the fourth member of Congress to endorse Sanders, who is coming off a 48-point drubbing at the hands of Hillary Clinton in South Carolina on Saturday. She joins Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, and Vermont Rep. Peter Welch.
It’s a high-profile pickup for Sanders, particularly considering that Gabbard is leaving the DNC — with which his campaign has had considerable tension in recent months following December’s data breach saga.
The congresswoman has seen her national profile rise as she has spoken out more about foreign policy issues, and as she clashed with DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz over the Democratic presidential debate schedule.
Still, Clinton has the backing of over 150 Democratic members of Congress, as well as all but four Democratic senators and all but six Democratic governors.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have a feeling this was planned well in advance, because it couldn't have happened at a time when Sanders needs a boost more.

Still, good news.

[Raw Shark]

Damn. I honestly did not expect dissension in the DNC ranks at this level, but apparently a few people at high levels are feelin' the Bern.

In related news, one of my flirty and foxy, not to mention politically-aware, regulars is my (maybe) platonic date on Super Tuesday, so win or lose, I'm having a good evening. See you at the caucus, Colorado bitches!

[The Romulan Republic]

Damn, wish I was in Colorado right now.

I'm registered as an overseas voter from Colorado, but I called and apparently (presuming the person I talked to knew their job) their's no way to participate in the caucus unless you're actually in the state.

Pity, because I'd love to be voting for the Bern in a close state.