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

ha, true

If Trump and Fiorina and Carson are non-starters, and Bush continues to sputter, Rubio seems well-positioned. Maybe, as people here point out, he'd need to get much better for that to happen, but that doesn't seem impossible; when I watch Bush, is almost seems impossible that he's going to get any better.

There aren't even 75 million Democrats in the country let alone 75 million who "really like" Hilary.

Sorry, that's true, i was thoughtlessly applying "between 25 and 30% of registered voters are Democrats" to 300m population, but of course it's only the proportion of registered voters, a much smaller group.

Would you accept 45m?

I think the problem in your statement is more the "really like" part

Oh and the "excited by"

Replace that stuff with "will grudgingly accept if necessary" and I'll sign on to your campaign.

But that's exactly my point -- I don't get where the idea comes from that Democrats are going to grudgingly hold their noses and vote for HRC. I don't see much daylight between her politics and Obama's politics. And don't you think Democrats would enthusiastically vote for Obama if he could run again?

at this point every hillary supporter i know is a fired up enthusiastic supporter. it's not at where obama was but considerably higher than i ever saw for gore or kerry. if you don't know someone who loves loves loves them some hillary you're in a pretty nice echo chamber and i envy you. at the same time sanders is having far more success than previous candidacies of his kind managed and i don't think that's entirely due to the smaller field (i don't think he's a factor largely because he's drawn the anti-hillary support either). i always thought a warren candidacy would be doomed but now i'm not so sure. i'd still rather have her in the senate though. i wonder how a sherrod brown campaign would have gone also.

i admit i hadn't "realized" that bill clinton, the guy who gave us NAFTA and deregulation of radio and wall street, was really "serving up a good deal of economic populism."

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Sunday, September 27, 2015 7:11 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

clinton was also "it's the economy, stupid" and tax increases (top two brackets, corporate tax, gas tax) and the earned-income tax credit among many others and major expansion of pell grants and college scholarships and the family and medical leave act and attempted universal health care falling back to the state childrens' health insurance program (thanks to hillary, on the issue that's driven her entire career) and how old were you in 1993 anyway?

"(Thought it was just me ;) I liked his "people like you" most-seems nice"

convenient excision of the "(and me)". you, like the vast majority of ilx posters, are a white college graduate, correct? congratulations, you belong to a big 24% of the 2012 obama coalition.

bernie's message resonates in Vermont and New Hampshire and to a lesser extent Iowa because those are three of the whitest (#1s 1, 3, and 5) and two of the smallest (#49 and 42 in population; 46 and 45 in area) and most highly-educated (#s 7 and 8 by college-grad %) states in the nation, all of which, like the vast majority of the blue states, are also in the top half by average income (NH is #6). scandinavian-style democratic socialism flies in small racial monocultures where people identify with one another culturally (Sweden is home to fewer people than NC; the other scandinavian countries are all smaller in population than Maryland) and organize together economically (scandinavian nations are home to vastly stronger labor movements than the US), but not in one of the biggest and most diverse nations in the world (nation of nations, really, still fighting a cold civil and economic war - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/). Obama won both IA and NH in 2012 by (barely) winning the white (51%) and college-eduated (50%) votes in each, but he lost those votes in FL, VA, OH, CO and NV, all of which he won (like a number of blue states too) thanks only to black and hispanic vote that, like a not-insubstantial percentage of the low-income republican-leaning white vote, sees the contest primarily through a racial/ethnic/cultural rather than economic prism.

in 2008, barack won by taking the core democratic coalition, which joins the above link's combined yankeedom/new netherland (i.e. the Northeast and Great Lakes) with the Left Coast, and adding to it enough of hispanic el norte (the southwest, and, for robert david sullivan but not woodard who deems it an extension of the caribbean, south florida) and the white ethnic (more culturally/ethnically yes german- and less anglo-american) midlands (similar to chris matthews' "scranton to osh kosh"), the latter of which he was the first democrat to win convincingly since the 70s, to go well over the top. if you want a "white" candidate without a connection to communities of color to champion an income-focused message, i think you're risking reversion back to the Kerry/Gore (remember "the people vs. the powerful"?) coalition in which we won far less of el norte and the midlands ad had to rely on the bank-shot of barely winning those small white states at the margins of yankeedom but apart from appalachia to take the electoral college. Kerry took neighboring NH, but lost IA, OH, and FL in addition to all the Southwestern states. Gore barely won IA (and, even closer, NM), but Nader took NH from him (with the aid of a lot of Bernie voters), allowing Bush to steal too-close FL. Bill Clinton otoh won all these states, most of them twice (CO only in 92, FL only in 96), and either edge-Midlander Illinoisan Hillary (and her Appalachian husband) or Scranton-born Midlander Biden is best positioned to keep them in the fold this time, certainly moreso than a Yankee/New Netherland Jew.

in the highly unlikely hypothetical event that Bernie got the nom, he would probably win neighboring NH in the general, but I think he'd have a tougher time in potential-VP Joni Ernst's IA (not to mention neighboring WI, which Kerry carried by 0.4%, quite possibly due to that damn Carhartt jacket, and Gore, thanks to Nader, by just 0.2%) or the empty-suit-whose-name-I-don't-remember's CO (maybe he can turn out the berner vote as it were). perhaps hispanic animus against the GOP is strong enough to keep NM and perhaps NV in his fold, but I wouldn't want to rely on that against a spanish-speaking Republican nominee (who can point out bernie's past opposition to open borders and involvement in killing immigration reform in 2007), especially one with a Mexican-American wife. even if he did win both, Bernie would need one more state on top. It's possible that the combination of the hispanic, african-american, and Jewish votes might put him over the top in FL, the one place where the last might have a significant impact, regardless who wins the SW states, but i wouldn't want to count on that against a Republican who's actually from Florida and possibly Cuban-American. never mind that all this assumes that his candidacy wouldn't end before it begins by drawing a more immigration/business-friendly and gun-unfriendly independent like Michael Bloomberg into the race (explain how a Democrat wins without NY and surrounding states).

PS you have been very nice to me. morbs and others too.

Clinton was chair of the DLC.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, September 27, 2015 7:17 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, and i suggest reading the story of how that came about - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/recruiting-bill-clinton/281946/. Clinton was not Sam Nunn, who thought him too liberal, or even Chuck Robb (and neither, necessarily, was the DLC) and hesitated in joining even after they offered him a travel budget but ultimately accepted to help build his platform in becoming a national figure over theoretically competing technocrats like paul tsongas, my first choice in '92 (more geographically-aligned, stronger environmentalist, seemed smarter but what did i, not yet of voting age, know) in the absence of decidedly populist liberal cuomo.

more on the DLC and Clinton et al in 92 here - https://books.google.com/books?id=ItAOKZs4PqIC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=paul+tsongas+dlc&source=bl&ots=phuW0opCtj&sig=NImeE4kDuQ8u44mCMncJinnmFv4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwA2oVChMI_5Ti04SZyAIVwnU-Ch2hrAUc#v=onepage&q=paul%20tsongas%20dlc&f=false

he's a fraud. the argument sets itself up as 'good person who is right on all the issues but can't get elected and couldn't govern vs corrupt person who is wrong on alot of the issues but will get elected and could govern' but really it's 'awful person who is right on a couple of issues and wrong on alot of issues but can't get elected and couldn't govern (beyond maybe passing that 'the weakest gun control laws in the country become the default for the entire country' bill the nra has had a hardon for) vs awful person who is right on a couple of issues and wrong on alot of issues but might get elected and conceivably could govern'. i was gonna compare him to ted cruz and ask if bernie supporters think the best thing that could happen for conservatism and the republican party would be ted cruz winning the nomination except that's not a fair comparison as ted cruz actually does a really good job of exemplifying conservative policy positions and appealing and reaching out to different segments of the conservative base. where and when cruz and sanders positions overlap - and they do, far too much - it's on cruz's turf. and you're right that trump not responding to a supporter crossing a line in attacking the potus and sanders not responding to supporters crossing a line in attacking black critics of his campaign aren't the same thing. the president still has his job while sanders supporters managed to get the guy who wrote about it in the post fired.

― balls, Monday, September 28, 2015 12:53 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is ridiculous

Could we go back to the hair gel? I didn't get that.

yeah, and i suggest reading the story of how that came about - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/recruiting-bill-clinton/281946/. Clinton was not Sam Nunn, who thought him too liberal, or even Chuck Robb (and neither, necessarily, was the DLC) and hesitated in joining even after they offered him a travel budget but ultimately accepted to help build his platform in becoming a national figure over theoretically competing technocrats like paul tsongas, my first choice in '92 (more geographically-aligned, stronger environmentalist, seemed smarter but what did i, not yet of voting age, know) in the absence of decidedly populist liberal cuomo.

So I read it (didn't know From himself wrote it) and learned nothing that wasn't in one of the conventional bios -- Nigel Hamilton's, say. The DLC wanted to appeal to moderates and libs, Clinton was reluctant (because he wanted to run for president), From dangled the 100K, etc. OK!

Trump interview on 60 minutes was hilarious, was really just 15 minutes of Pelley saying "where are you going to get the money for this?" and "you know the president can't actually do that, right?" over and over

Anyone who could still be a Trump supporter after that interview, I just can't even... He's going to achieve everything in his platform by the sheer magnitude of his star power, evidently.

really, he's taking Obama's playbook?

Hey, it works!

I couldn't bear to watch the whole 60 Minutes interview but was struck by the thought that the interviewee right before Trump would do a better job as US president than Trump

And it was Vladimir Putin

Afaict no candidate ever bothers campaigning in Illinois. Certainly not dems. It's like we wake up one morning with a new pres, Obama excitement excepted.

Illinois just has a primary the same day as the bulk of primaries, right? That kills the pre-nomination campaigning, and it's probably just seen as a lock-in for the dems in the regular election

surely if the Cubs win the World Series, HRC will again remember she's from Illinois

that will be the least remarkable thing about a Cubs win, imo

I won't call myself a Sanders supporter while they attack BLM-people on twitter without him speaking out against it.

Why should he care or be responsible for what people say on Twitter? Cleaning up internet mud slinging is hard enough for coders and mods what makes you think Bernie Sanders is going to succeed where Twitter failed?

Should he be cutting out a half hour of economic policy talk at his next speech to detail his plans for policing Twitter hate?

kinda reminds me of Wall St buffoons upbraiding OWS activists for using capitalist-made devices

hey maybe he could just acknowledge that the BLM activists have a point, even one valid to his own campaign

He did he hired them and had them help write his racial justice platform.

Also stepped back and let them speak when they got on stage.

hey maybe he could just acknowledge that the BLM activists have a point, even one valid to his own campaign

― μpright mammal (mh), Monday, September 28, 2015

he's done this already

oh then twitter people should stfu

like, ignore them completely, good move Bernie!

oh then twitter people should stfu

Generally, yes.

If we are going to judge candidates on the horrible things their followers say on twitter then it's gonna get messy pretty quick...

And Sanders would still lose.

I'm game to support Bernie for as long as he can hang in.

at the same time sanders is having far more success than previous candidacies of his kind managed

I don't think this is true at all (surely gabbneb will weigh in with some critical stats next Saturday) but even if it was, there's no way he's winning the nomination, treating him as anything other than the usual noise in the system is a waste of energy imo. I wish the Democrats had better candidates than Hilz and Sanders this time around, but they don't and the likelihood of one appearing at this late juncture is basically zero.

IF the following two things are true, a) that bernie has alarmingly low name-recognition among black and hispanic democrats (not even approval, just mere recognition), b) that the political mediascape is increasingly social, which has fueled both bernie and the GOP's outsider frontrunners, and c) there is an emerging set of young black leadership that is near-unimaginable w/o social media, centered in #BLM, THEN the antagonism between #feelthebern and #BLM is an enormous political liability for bernie that can't really be laughed off as just some twitter shittalk

maybe it's not "his fault" but so what

he's done a few things to try to address the gap but as an elderly socialist from vermont he should have had that gap in mind from day 0. really demonstrates a bad read on the state of the party he's trying to lead.

the likelihood of one appearing at this late juncture is basically zero

We kind of already know what's out there. Even if a Biden or a Warren were to hop in, they're already known quantities. There's just no one else out there right now.

"there is no one else"

^quote by Rob (Meathead) Reiner about Hollywood Democrats and the inevitability of H Rodham from a NY Times story about 18 months ago.

I would vote for Gore, but it's so not gonna happen. Biden = No. Warren more useful in the Senate. The rest = blech

I am over here at my cubicle applauding goole's post like a crazy person

Ditto, except for that he said "two things" and then listed three.

btw I know exactly one person irl (a gay asian Canadian coworker) who is *super-excited* about Hillary

really demonstrates a bad read on the state of the party he's trying to lead.

fingers crossed for a sex scandal

And Sanders would still lose.

I am not voting for who is likely to win if I wanted to do that I would bet corporate every time.

It's an election for who would do the best job. Not who is going to score more points. It's not a football game. I'm not gambling on horses here. Though I am smelling a lot of manure.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/3c3fa5d817532558fac54d832006c165f5810988/22_0_1210_726/500.jpg?w=460&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=4e5d739ff0336fa39968e259117881ad
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--WVLVzTiB--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1450677354228592526.jpg

a liberal black friend at lunch a couple days ago: "I want to support Bernie, but he's acting already as if I must support him, the unspoken assumption being that if I don't I support Hillary and the Republicans."