2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[Maximus]

Maybe they targeted Bernie because he actually has decent crowds at his events, unlike Hillary.

 

[gourimoko]

Maybe they targeted Bernie because he actually has decent crowds at his events, unlike Hillary.

He's a threat... This looks like 2008 all over again.

 

[Pioneer10]

He isnt going to win and its not going to ne 2008. Brendan Nyhan the party decides is pretty clear on this. Endorsement are a better indicator of future primary success and Obama had some powerful people behind him (Durbin, Daschle, and the Kennedy clan).

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[gourimoko]

He isnt going to win and its not going to ne 2008. Brendan Nyhan the party decides is pretty clear on this. Endorsement are a better indicator of future primary success and Obama had some powerful people behind him (Durbin, Daschle, and the Kennedy clan).

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

I don't think endorsements actually matter that much, and I think using them as an indicator of who is going to win an election this early out is definitely a flawed statistical model.

But with respect to Obama, Daschle was already out the Senate and Durbin was from Obama's home state and actually got the okay to endorse Obama from the Clintons - this is Chicago/Illinois politics which is another topic in itself. But, Durbin's endorsement was a given.

The majority of the Kennedys despise the Clintons, and only Max and Bobby Jr support Hillary this year; the rest have been pushing Warren to run and may still back Sanders. Essentially, anybody but Hillary.

Lastly, it's important to remember that Clinton had the most endorsements at this point in the 2008 primaries. In fact, it wasn't until Obama had won 11 straight primaries that delegates began to jump ship en masse. But going into Iowa, Clinton winning was considered a foregone conclusion.

So with respect to indicators, the few studies that have been done on the issue show that at most, in a close election, a home state endorsement may be worth 2-4 points and may decide a close election. But there are much stronger factors that go into an election cycle in any given state than endorsements.

I think looking at endorsements like this, in a vacuum, and declaring a winner prior to the early state primaries is a mistake.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What did they say and what was his response?

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...eattle-Westlake-rally-321146281.html?mobile=y

 

[ajz20]

You hit the nail on the head.

The only thing I'd add is that Sanders did deserve what happened to him at Netroots Nation. He totally misunderstands the BLM concern, while literally requiring a 90%+ turnout from African-Americans.

To be told, All Lives Matter, and that the problems in the Black community are entirely economically driven misses the point of the movement; which is that there is a major racial component - outside of the control of Black victims - and that must be addressed by government.

He seems to be getting it; but Clinton has embraced it, publicly and vocally..

My worry is that Clinton is going to play a scorched Earth strategy using Black and Latino voters as a buffer to prevent Sanders from winning any states that have even marginal minority populations. This is a dangerous game to play, because if she causes Black voters to become alienated from Sanders and he ultimate wins the nomination; you would end up with a candidate so damaged that he'd have no hope in the general.

Sanders can't beat Hilary unless something crazy happens.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I didn't go to the rally but probably should have since these things tend to bring out the crazies.

What "things tend to bring out the crazies"? Bernie Sanders' rallies?

OK. Sounds about right to me.

Not quite. This isn't the first time rogue BLM folks have crashed a Bernie Sanders event while not only not targeting Hillary rallies, but also abusing poor Bernie as being against Black Lives and praising Hillary.

What are "rogue" BLM folks? I don't believe that there's an official gatekeeper to determine who can and who cannot say they are part of that movement, or that such a gatekeeper has said those Seattle protestors were not part of the movement.

If you go to the BLM main Facebook page, they mention what happened in Seattle but do not disavow or apologise for it.

https://m.facebook.com/BlackLivesMatter?refsrc=https://www.facebook.com/BlackLivesMatter

But...it gets more interesting from there.

Turns out the two are not really affiliated with BLM in a meaningful sense, and are actually members of a local group of malcontents knowns as "Outside Agitators 206." The professional pain-in-the-ass provocateurs are known for crashing events around Seattle to draw attention to [whatever bellyaching bullshit] to include crashing the Christmas Tree lighting at City Hall and blocking I-5. As such, they have alienated most everyone that would be inclined to endorse social justice causes like Black Lives Matter....

Oddly enough, OA206 website's IP is registered to Merck Pharmaceuticals.... Crazy, @gourimoko, don't you think?

Do you have a link for all of that? Because the Facebook page for Black Lives Matter Seattle doesn't agree. I don't doubt that those particular activists may have been affiliated with other groups as well, but that's hardly uncommon, and it doesn't mean they aren't part of the BLM movement. Just as an example, I'd be willing to put some money down that A.N.S.W.E.R. folks are probably more inclined to be involved with BLM than are members of the general population.

https://m.facebook.com/BLMSeattle

That page not only specifically takes credit for shutting down Sanders' rally (#BowDownBernie) but also says that the Chapter is a "registered member of the Black Lives Matter organization."

Then there was the very similar protest at Netroots, which also involved hijacking a rally. We're those not "real" BLM people either? Heck, that reliably leftist rag The Nation actually supported that Netroots action, despite being a fan of Sanders in general.

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-netroots-blacklivesmatter-protest-is-long-overdue/

By any standard, Bernie's record vis-a-vis African American issues is far better than Hillary's so it is something of a mystery (not really) why he keeps getting hit.

Maybe not. Maybe the reason Sanders was targeted is his penchant for framing racial issues primarily in economic terms (not surprising given that he's a socialist), which doesn't sit well with some BLM folks.

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-blew-a-huge-opportunity-at-netroots-nation/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-race/

 

[AZ_]

Sanders can't beat Hilary unless something crazy happens.

In fairness, this was the argument in 2007-08 as well.

The left certainly isn't enamored with her, though I think some of that criticism is probably unfair and based on the fact she's been around too long.

That said, I need someone to talk me out of supporting Bernie Sanders.

 

[ajz20]

In fairness, this was the argument in 2007-08 as well.

The left certainly isn't enamored with her, though I think some of that criticism is probably unfair and based on the fact she's been around too long.

That said, I need someone to talk me out of supporting Bernie Sanders.

I am not saying Sanders is a poor canidate by any means, but the major players in the party are already behind Hilary and there are a significant amount of female voters and minorities who are excited about her running. Plus Bill is still very popular with the party because of how well he handled the economy. The right might hate her but she is popular with females minorities and even a decent amount of independents.

 

[The Oi]

Someone summarize what you like about Hilary.

More importantly, how you realistically feel she'll change America for you and the rest of its citizens. Or if she'll keep it the same.

 

[KI4MVP]

Someone summarize what you like about Hilary.

More importantly, how you realistically feel she'll change America for you and the rest of its citizens. Or if she'll keep it the same.

One appeal of Hillary to people is clearly how well the country did while her husband was president. The economy grew, the budget balanced.

 

[-Akronite-]

You hit the nail on the head.

The only thing I'd add is that Sanders did deserve what happened to him at Netroots Nation. He totally misunderstands the BLM concern, while literally requiring a 90%+ turnout from African-Americans.

To be told, All Lives Matter, and that the problems in the Black community are entirely economically driven misses the point of the movement; which is that there is a major racial component - outside of the control of Black victims - and that must be addressed by government.

He seems to be getting it; but Clinton has embraced it, publicly and vocally..

My worry is that Clinton is going to play a scorched Earth strategy using Black and Latino voters as a buffer to prevent Sanders from winning any states that have even marginal minority populations. This is a dangerous game to play, because if she causes Black voters to become alienated from Sanders and he ultimate wins the nomination; you would end up with a candidate so damaged that he'd have no hope in the general.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

He already gets it. He seemed to have fielded a question badly, but he put this plan out BEFORE he got interrupted.

I don't see a scenario where Hillary can destroy his credibility with minorities without looking like a hypocrite. I also don't see a realistic scenario where Bernie comes out on top, even though I plan on voting for him.

 

[Pioneer10]

I don't think endorsements actually matter that much, and I think using them as an indicator of who is going to win an election this early out is definitely a flawed statistical model.

But with respect to Obama, Daschle was already out the Senate and Durbin was from Obama's home state and actually got the okay to endorse Obama from the Clintons - this is Chicago/Illinois politics which is another topic in itself. But, Durbin's endorsement was a given.

The majority of the Kennedys despise the Clintons, and only Max and Bobby Jr support Hillary this year; the rest have been pushing Warren to run and may still back Sanders. Essentially, anybody but Hillary.

Lastly, it's important to remember that Clinton had the most endorsements at this point in the 2008 primaries. In fact, it wasn't until Obama had won 11 straight primaries that delegates began to jump ship en masse. But going into Iowa, Clinton winning was considered a foregone conclusion.

So with respect to indicators, the few studies that have been done on the issue show that at most, in a close election, a home state endorsement may be worth 2-4 points and may decide a close election. But there are much stronger factors that go into an election cycle in any given state than endorsements.

I think looking at endorsements like this, in a vacuum, and declaring a winner prior to the early state primaries is a mistake.

Can you clarify where this data is from because that appears to from the general election while in primary elections it is really the establishment that makes the difference for the most part.

I think you are vastly underselling Daschle who held considerable sway not in small part due to his staff being some of the most highly regarded on the hill and whom went on to other key senators campaigns. Also Ted was alive back in 08 and Ted is dead now: that is big difference.

Finally, the Iraq war vote has lost it salience. Just don't see anything like that Sanders could use even if he had the party behind him. Plus Sanders doesn't have the historical gravitas as Obama did of possibly being the first black president to offset the historical significance of the possible first women president either. Sanders is simply ain't happening

http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations/dp/0226112373

 

[Pioneer10]

Someone summarize what you like about Hilary.

More importantly, how you realistically feel she'll change America for you and the rest of its citizens. Or if she'll keep it the same.

She's not one of the crazies that was in Cleveland the other day. I mean seriously do you need another reason after watching that clown car?

 

[gourimoko]

Can you clarify where this data is from because that appears to from the general election while in primary elections it is really the establishment that makes the difference for the most part.

Yes, you're right the data is primarily with respect to the general election; do you have some primary data that we can look at? (http://www.nber.org/papers/w14445.pdf)

I think you are vastly underselling Daschle who held considerable sway not in small part due to his staff being some of the most highly regarded on the hill and whom went on to other key senators campaigns. Also Ted was alive back in 08 and Ted is dead now: that is big difference.

Can you explain how I've vastly undersold Daschle? I mean, in real terms? Daschle backing Obama was not that big of a deal. First off, this was no surprise endorsement considering Daschle's Chief of Staff and his campaign manager were already on board.

Finally, the Iraq war vote has lost it salience. Just don't see anything like that Sanders could use even if he had the party behind him.

I generally agree. Didn't mention Iraq. But I don't think Hillary's Iraq vote really hurt her that much. It certainly didn't hurt her in Iowa or New Hampshire.

In Iowa, Obama was +10 on the economy, +9 on Iraq, only +4 on health care, +2 on relatability. He was -7 on electability, and -44 on being experienced enough to be President. But this was a change election, and he was +32 in that department; enough to take the state in a big way.

So again, within the Democratic caucuses and early primaries, the separation between Obama and Clinton on Iraq was minimal. Both opposed the war, and the original war vote didn't sway a great deal of voters.

Again, no one saw this coming, and I think that's important. We cannot predict Iowa at this stage of the game with any confidence. It's a caucus state, and can play to Sanders' strengths. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the dynamic of the race will change. It's a long shot, but to say he's not a serious contender is a mistake.

Plus Sanders doesn't have the historical gravitas as Obama did of possibly being the first black president to offset the historical significance of the possible first women president either. Sanders is simply ain't happening

I don't really think this means anything, to be honest. It is a popular myth that votes attributed to Obama because he was Black were somehow the cause of him winning the election. First off, Iowa and New Hampshire have very small Black populations. Iowa's caucuses work in such a way that the Black vote is essentially meaningless. So Obama didn't really garner any early support in those states due to his race.

And while you might be able to claim he won South Carolina for reasons of race; I think it's important to note that it was at this time that the race had started to become racially divisive. Also it was during the New Hampshire primaries that people had already written Clinton's obituary once the New Hampshire primary day polls were released and she was down by 5 (and the exit polls reflected this). I was there that day, and we were certain to win and close out the election that day. I cannot tell you how bad losing New Hampshire hurt. But that's another story.

Also, even though South Carolina was largely handed to Obama by Black voters, the same can be said of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and several other states where White voters openly stated to exit pollsters that they were voting against Obama because he was Black. In Ohio, that percentage (again of Democrats) ran up to 25% of all voters.

So no, Obama didn't win the primaries due to his race, he won due to a brilliant political strategy by David Plouffe and David Axelrod to capitalize on a mobilization effort in the caucus states allowing Obama to keep up with Clinton in the popular vote while nabbing the majority of state delegates; neutralizing her efforts to close on Super Tuesday.

This strategy became possible due to his victory in Iowa. This same strategy for Sanders starts in Iowa. If he can win Iowa and New Hampshire, he can neutralize victories Clinton victories in South Carolina and Nevada.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations/dp/0226112373

I can't access the book itself so I can't comment on it's contents. I can say that the general synopsis is fairly correct historically, especially within the Democratic Party. Until the 1960s, party bosses and delegates to the convention held enormous say over forming party tickets; but that's not the case as much today. And yes, there is a process to running for the Presidency that requires one to get some establishment backing, in general, but to say the degree to which one is backed by the establishment is an indicator of how the primaries will turn out is not in congruence with the 2008 Democratic Primaries.

Barack Obama did not have more establishment endorsements, or superdelegate endorsements (which represents the establishment itself) than Hillary Clinton until he was almost certain to win a majority of the state delegate count. Clinton's argument at the time was that she would have more overall delegates and likely have a higher total of the popular vote (a meaningless metric given many states use caucuses). But it wasn't until May that the tide started to turn within the establishment itself and high profile individuals began "abandoning" the Clinton's.