a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

my local newspaper is an embarassment to journalism fwiw

those state legislatures are labs for dangerous shit that gets introduced nationally when those bozos get to Congress

Sander's support is so limited to white male liberals

I don't think this is true at all fwiw, women love Bernie (certainly plenty of the white liberal women I know do)

Alfred otm

that tub of butter looks like kuato

In a yougov poll, Sanders was the most liked democratic nominee amongst the white vote, beating Hilary 38-37, but had the support of a whopping 4% of the black vote. Funnily enough, the white vote is the only one that Bernie wins. Not the liberal vote, though he obviously does well there. Not the midwest vote, though he is close. No, the only part of the vote where Sanders is beating Hilary is the white vote. And while that might be good enough to win the republican primary, it's a big problem for a democratic candidate.

look Bernie's not a serious candidate. He's gonna maybe win Iowa + New Hampshire (if he even gets that far) and then it's over.

the important thing to remember is it's endtimes, and i had better be fucking dead by the time shit gets real.

and the beginning of thae actual fucking voting is 3-1/2 months away, Frederik. Things can change. (But obv the Dems will stop Sanders any way they can if he figures out how to win the black vote.)

Frederik B - This line keeps getting repeated, and it's not without basis in the facts, but it's also weird... like repeating his current performance makes it into a prophecy of the future. Do I expect that Bernie is going to eventually capture 75% of the black vote? No. Does he have some innate weaknesses owing to his career/background in trying to reach a national audience? Sure. Do I think his numbers have some potential of going up once he's actually, like, actively courted black voters? Well, yeah. The first primaries are not til February. Is he even airing any ads yet?

Why would it be "over" after Iowa and New Hampshire? Not to say he has a huge shot of winning any other primaries, but given that he's likely not running to win, I could see him beating his drum as long as there are money and donors. The example here would be Kucinich 2004, who kept it rolling basically up until the convention without winning anything.

points deducted for resorting to Rumsfeldian Q&A style there

We go to ILX with the dull rhetorical tropes we have.

as for it being over after Iowa and/or New Hampshire I'm just making a guess. In a close contest with only one other candidate, Bernie's going to have to contend with Hillary going to go all out to co-opt and/or destroy him and she has the money and backing to do it, even if she is being a totally shitty candidate at the moment. Bernie's gonna run out of money and support when it's demonstrated he can't marshal voters outside of his narrow band of appeal. And this is a pattern that has more or less been repeated in every Democratic election since I've been alive, I don't see anything marking out Bernie as exceptional this time around.

For the record, Kucinich survived in 2004 in a much more crowded field and on the strength of a single issue (being against the war). In 2008, with a much narrower field, Kooch dropped out after not winning any of the first three primaries.

also lol xp

It's quite possible that South Carolina could be such a big embarrassment for him that his campaign would be done. He is running a populist campaign, when it becomes clear that he is really just appealing to a specific minority in the party, then the rest could just be embarrassing. At some point, him getting trounced over and over would just give cover for Hilary to actually ignore his ideas.

(and also, through a quirk in the primary calendar, I think that most of the coming primaries after NH and Iowa are in regions where he doesn't have a chance of winning. Portland won't vote til may.)

And I know it's early, but 4% is pitiful

Though another fun thing: Sanders has a better net favorability rating amongst black voters than white ditto. 13% compared to 6%. Neither of those are particularly impressive, mind you. And also, I'm just scrolling through a stupid poll thing, can't really be used for anything.

look Bernie's not a serious candidate.

Maybe, but Bernie has pinned his campaign to a serious issue. Lefties may like to call it economic justice, but to ordinary voters it is "everyone is working their goddamn butts off, but a tiny group of people are raking in all the money". Young people 'get' this issue in spades, but it cuts across all demographic groups.

This issue is a big unknown in terms of national political payoff, mainly because most politicians won't touch it for fear of drying up their big-money contributions. If that issue starts to resonate with voters, he'll do very well. It all depends on how fed up voters are on that bread and butter issue and whether they think he can help them. If it falls flat, or the media can kick up enough dust and distractions to obscure the election, he'll crash and burn by mid to late March.

xposts re: Kucinich - Well, analogies could be drawn, right? Sanders's "single issue" is economic/social justice and it's not entirely clear to me that the kind of $10-50 donors that have gotten him going so far will just give up interest in the issue, in a way that people opposed to the Iraq War didn't for Kucinich. Again, assuming that his appeal can only be to the smallest sliver of your hopelessly leftie Democrats - through the figure of "when it's demonstrated he can't..." is maybe assuming a little too much.

I just don't think he's running the kind of campaign that has to read all tea leaves and go "wellp, this thing's over, we're not doing well enough in Minnesota and we can't afford to also lose Arkansas so may as well pack it in after Nebraska" or whatever. He seems like he wants to be at least a gadfly, keep his issues in the air, maybe even soak up a few delegates for shaping the platform, since the Democratic primaries are not winner-take-all. I guess maybe I'm arguing that a Kucinich or Sanders (or, really, Nader) type candidacy is a different animal than the "slightly more traditionally liberal alternative trying to win in a conventional sense" (Bradley, Dean) which is what I absolutely do see in every Democratic election since I've been alive.

Nader never ran as a Democrat

4% is kind of pretty good for a guy who seems to be barely campaigning or, like, doing anything. I'm finding that he just visited South Carolina for the first time this campaign, uh, two days ago. Again, I'm not seeing him winning the state, it's just too much ground to make up, but so, if 4% is "pitiful" what are numbers that would seem "reasonable"? What's the stay-in-this-thing point for an issues-based campaign? Be nice to pin this down now so we don't have to move the goalposts around later.

re: Nader - I know, just naming someone else running as a "real left alternative" with no shot at being President, who stayed in the race forever and a day.

Nader's whole point was Sanders' whole point only in a much more destructive "both parties are craven corporate lackies" way

"destructive"

call Al Fucking Gore destructive

And also, I'm just scrolling through a stupid poll thing, can't really be used for anything.

Sanders isn't a real candidate but it's pretty lazy to say he only draws with white male liberals - up to this point polling has largely been about name recognition and "white liberals" is the group where he has the most name recognition. There's nothing to indicate that Hillary has more natural support among any demographic but women (and the rich).

4% is black vote nationally, not just South Carolina. And for a populist inequality based campaign, I'd say one-digit polling for the most discriminated against group is pretty bad. And it can't just be that he isn't campaigning, then the result among other groups wouldn't be as low. He is doing much much better among several other groups, including 32% amongst the group with family income over 80.000$. How is that for populism? Actually, that group is where he is doing best, trailing Hilary only by 9 points. If only the primaries were decided by rich white people, then he'd probably have a chance ;)

I wasn't using that as a pejorative Morbz, I meant destructive in relation to our hallowed two-party system

Sanders is happy to be a gadfy, but he isn't going to advocate the destruction of our electoral system or either of its parties

xp

i advocate the destruction of all three.

in 2000 the election was decided by the VERY RICHEST white people

and guys...

it's August 2015.

I spotted (did not watch) an online debate between two "liberal" writers I've never heard of; subject: if a Republican is going to win the presidency in 2016 (a premise I reject btw), is it possible Donald Trump would be the best of a bad bunch, being the least genuinely conservative?

that's like three too many hypotheticals not worth entertaining

^

at that point I'd want China and Iran to bomb us.

Frederik B, has Sanders promised to declare war on Denmark or something? Look, everything about those numbers is pretty easy to understand: highly-informed college-educated voters unsurprisingly are the slice most likely to jump for the self-proclaimed Socialist and hit share, and yeah, that tends to correspond with wealth. Shocker! I just don't see why we have to assume that he has no appeal beyond that sphere, just because right now, in a world where he basically hasn't campaigned beyond that sphere, his numbers are "pitiful." You could just as easily say the numbers look pretty good for a guy with no advertising, in August the year before the election, who isn't running to win anyway.

They should let Sanders moderate a debate after he drops out.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here Doc - do you think Sanders *is* going to appeal outside of that sphere? To latinos? Non-college educated whites?

A Sanders moderated debate is a great idea.

a debate between who

Reagan and Reagan.

wonder what this means -- in 07 ilx was an obama hotbed, but now in 15 the vibe is only mildly pro-bernie if at all? unless i'm misreading folks here. or sort of shrug-resigned to hillary? has B's old-left stumbling around race in 2015 tanked him with internet left people? we're all 8 years older. idk, it's an interesting point in community evolution.

― goole, Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:26 PM (2 hours ago)

probably already mentioned but this is it. ilx has changed a lot in 8 years. a lot of people have changed a lot in 8 years

I think he has a better shot at making *some* inroads than many self-styled pundits appear to think, Shakey.

Reagan and Reagan.

"There I go again *chuckle*"

I think he has a better shot at making *some* inroads

true, the NRA likes him

and he is white, and old, and bitter so there's some appeal to the GOP base somewhere in there

what are you people on the ground in south carolina telling you about sanders fredrick? what's the buzz on the streets??

i'll check back at Christmas and see if your joeks have improved

xp

Anti-big banks too. He could probably win a lot of republican votes if he tried being a jerk.

i genuinely can't tell with all the gabbneb wannabes we have around here but like, i assume the vast majority of us would, on the issues, prefer a bernie presidency to a hilary one? like when shakey says he "doesn't support" a bernie candidacy he means he thinks it's futile and it's not worth his ten bucks?

xp to myself

XXXXXXpost: tbf, that tub of butter DOES look like donald trump

Just want to make sure I understand:

There are people here arguing with a dude from Denmark about a primary that's months away based on poll conducted by historically mediocre YouGov...

hey I like Bernie, I agree w him about a lot of stuff (not everything). But no, I don't think he will win, and this is all essentially a sideshow. On the other hand even if he could win I honestly don't think he would be that good a president. Despite his ideological positions, he doesn't seem particularly suited to leading a party (much less a country), being good in a crisis, wrangling legislation through congress, navigating foreign policy etc. He's fine, even valuable, in the Senate. I don't see him being a successful president.

Aren't the primaries themselves by definition a sideshow?

idk do sideshow acts "graduate" to the big tent?