In-Between Tuesday Primaries, March 8

I think a lot of my fellow Michiganders were as put off as I was about Hillary’s accusation that Sanders opposed the auto bailout. I think it backfired a bit on her.

Disappointed that our state went for Trump but I find it heartening that 9% of Michigan Republicans would vote for Hillary in November.

WTF is up with the networks, letting Trump getting away with hosting a Trump QVC type of news conference where he hawks his own merchandise? They should simply cut away when he pulls this shit. Or else tell the candidates- you’ve got 10 minutes of airtime when you make your appearance, then we cut away.

It went on for some 50 minutes, and closed with Trump insulting reporters as they were asking him questions! I’m sure his supporters eat this shit up, “Ha Ha! He’s insulting reporters!” Is this how he does his business deals? Tells his questioners, “You never have any good questions”?

It’s a good snapshot of many of the things wrong with the news media and the political process. They give Trump the time because it fills airtime with a spectacle that attracts audiences. Trump is outrageous and insulting because it’s a win-win for him – his base loves it and eats it up, and it makes him an entertaining spectacle that the media love.

The problem with this ludicrous farce is that it’s become inextricably entangled with a real, serious, and consequential election process. To Trump it’s a self-serving game with no downside. The victim here is the nation.

Yes. Clinton loses a lot of people in the general election if the primary voters are run over.

Nonsense. It means that any nominee has to get a majority of support from primary voters, and the superdelegates, as a group, go along with that expression, some switching as necessary.

I agree that VP isn’t the right job for him. However, if the remainder of the season plays out as I think most likely, it will be in Clinton’s interest to visibly bring him on board with something longer-lasting and more meaningful than a convention speech. Indeed, he might not accept a Cabinet post and leadership on a policy portfolio–but it would help her if he did.

I realize it’s not Clinton’s to give, but if the party itself wants to recognize Sanders’ power, why not make him Senate Democratic Leader, especially since the base isn’t too pleased with Chuck Schumer these days?

She doesn’t need a Biden. She needs someone who can help her prove she’s liberal and that she “gets it.” She needs someone who will ensure that those voters who are frustrated with the establishment show up to vote for her on election day. She needs a running mate who can inspire people. Bernie does that. And for some reason, despite potentially being our first woman president, she doesn’t do that as well.

I’m not sure why you say “my way or the highway” isn’t a particularly good trait for a Veep? I don’t see it as being necessarily good or bad. What damage (as Veep) could he possibly do with that attitude? None. He’s only got as much power as she will give him. And his “my way or the highway” is actually one of the reasons many people are drawn to him, so putting him on the ticket would please those people, while causing little actual “damage.” Plus, for him, it would continue to elevate his cause. And at this stage in his life, how much more can he elevate it as a senator from Vermont? No matter how mundane the tasks he was performing, having a socialist veep would inject a lot of energy into the progressive/lefty/socialist movement.

I’m not saying he’s the guy for her, but your arguments against him aren’t convincing me. I think she needs to go bold in her pick to pick up some of that energy that’s brewing out there amongst large chunks of voters. Bernie would be bold. I think she also needs to realize that Bernie is inspiring the next generation of Democratic voters, and not dismiss him once the nomination is settled.

I’m not a Democrat but I don’t know how much I buy this, the Democrats have had a moderate wing since long before I was born, and they had a conservative wing until it was destroyed by the Tea Party in 2010. I don’t know that the moderate Democrats “aren’t part of the base.”

Firstly it’s hard for me to respond seriously to someone using the juvenile Trump==Drumpf browser plugin.

I don’t think this explains Bernie’s performance beating the polls so dramatically because I don’t think many Dems are crossing over to vote for Trump, but as close as the final count was, Bernie’s actually winning may have been influenced by the #NeverTrump movement and the significant number of Dems like who had intentions to go vote against Trump in the primary. It’s possible this may be why Kasich had one of his better showings in Michigan, as he would be the likely candidate for a Democrat to pull the lever for if they were doing this.

The exit polling in Michigan did show that 7% of the Republican primary voters were Democrats, versus only 3% in the Democratic primary being Republican. It’s possible Hillary lost some margin there.

Yeah, a close delegate “tie” won by Sanders, meaning he wins in pledged delegates but only by say 50ish, would probably be swung to Hillary by superdelegates. It’s unlikely the powers that be would be comfortable doing any more than that.

I’ll be honest, I saw you say this somewhere else and I frankly don’t get it. Hillary didn’t lie–Bernie voted against the auto bailout. The reason he voted against it, to me, is actually worse than the “simple” explanation that he voted it down straight up. Instead he voted it down, in spite of favoring it because it included necessary bailout funds for the banks. So he literally said “I’m willing to punish millions of ordinary Americans because I think helping the banks is so wrong.”

What’s crazy is we would have suffered systemic economic collapse if the banks had not been stabilized by the government. (Note that we the people actually made a profit on the stabilization funds given to the banks, as they paid it back plus interest.) Bernie may or may not have a good argument about breaking up Big Banks (he doesn’t, it is dumb and his economic philosophies are deeply stupid), but no one with half a brain would say “well I oppose big banks so I’m going to pour gasoline on the American economy then set it on fire, hah!”

It’s 100% ratings, he is the most attention-getting candidate any of them have ever seen. People tune in specifically to see crazy Donald and what he’s going to say. What’s insane is how little money has been spent on his campaign versus the other Republican contenders–largely because of the yuuge amount of free media time he gets.

He’s not a Democrat in Congress, so that would be an odd thing to do.

Speaking of raising money, how about our Bernie? Bill Maher had a great joke last week: Bernie Sanders’ campaign raised $40M recently, and is now so wealthy it will be voting for Hillary!

Until he decided to run for President, he refused the label. That probably isn’t going to make him a popular party leader - one of the standard bearers for the Democrats is a guy who spent his life refusing to be called one? Not going to go over.

I agree that a vote against the bank bailout may have been principled, but also suicidal. The banks were indeed too big to fail. Hillary would have been totally within reason to criticize him for this. But criticizing him for not bailing out the big banks isn’t exactly electoral magic so she can’t do that. She instead implied that he specifically voted against the auto industry, which is patently untrue.

Well, I can possibly see Clinton offering Sanders a Cabinet position (Labor would be most likely), but I doubt he’d accept.

It’s as true as saying directly that she voted for Bush’s war in Iraq, something he frequently does.

How is 70 degrees bad? Do old people go burrow at the prospect of 70 degree weather?

That’s cute, you hate the super-communist candidate because, in this instance, he actually supported the supposed capitalist values of allowing businesses that made poor decision to fail. You reject him because he failed to socialize that failure and pay for poor business decisions out of the public coffer.

No, it really isn’t. This sort of thing happens all the time. We might have the “cute puppies for everyone and clean air and water bill” which obviously everyone is in favor of. And then someone adds a rider that says all left handed people will be rounded up and killed, so principled people now vote against it. It’s now technically true to say “so and so voted against the puppies/air/water bill”, but obviously deceptive and misleading.

Sanders apparently voted for a straight auto bailout (at least someone earlier in the thread said so), but refused to vote for it when it was packaged with something else he found unpalatable. It is deceptive to suggest that he was against the auto bailout in that case.

Whereas Clinton, on the other hand, voted for the AUMF because she supported the Iraq war. She wasn’t dragged into voting for it by voting for another thing - she wanted that very thing.

He caucuses with them and gets committee assignments based on his caucusing, so in theory there shouldn’t be an issue with making him leader in exchange for him formally becoming a member of the party.

So we all know going strictly off polling Sanders is going to lose OH/FL/IL/NC, so I’ll stipulate that still “is likely to happen.” But exploring a little deeper:

Bernie outperformed polling exceptionally in Michigan, but only did a little better (2 delegates out of 130 worth) than his “projected demographic performance” that FiveThirtyEight basis their projection tracker on.

-Florida is demographically better for Clinton than Michigan was, she was “supposed” to lose Michigan, but she’s supposed to win Florida by roughly an 18 delegate margin. Additionally, Florida is a “true” closed primary state, so anyone who isn’t a Democrat and wanted to vote for Bernie had to have filed paperwork to switch parties 29 days or more before 3/15. We know that this generally is something that a lot of people don’t do, which hurts Bernie’s chances of repeating his poll-busting performance in Florida.

-Ohio is demographically quite similar to Michigan, and Clinton’s lead in the Ohio polling is a little less than his Michigan polling was. If Michigan represents a trend of Sanders support that the polls are missing, Ohio is a likely place where we would see this manifested. In Ohio one does not register to vote with a political party, and thus the primaries are true open primaries. The Governor of Ohio is participating in the Republican primary on the same day, which may lead a lot of moderate Democrats (and a ton of them voted for Kasich for Governor, he won his last election with like 65% of the vote), into that primary to support Kasich, which hurts Clinton. Of the four 3/15 states I think Ohio is the most likely to repeat Michigan for Sanders.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say I have an “unscientific hunch” that this may happen. I’m not saying I know more than the polls, just saying I have a hunch about Ohio. If I was betting on elections I’d probably still bet with the aggregate polling as they have been right more than they’ve been wrong (it’s a case of selection bias that some Bernie fans think the polls have been wrong all year.)

The only negative for Bernie in Ohio is unlike Michigan Ohio has early voting and no-excuse absentee voting (i.e. anyone can get an absentee ballot without having to justify it.) I haven’t explored the reasons why this is, but pundits have claimed the lack of early voting and no-excuse absentee voting in Michigan hurt Clinton there and helped Sanders. It could be because there is a belief that Sanders’ heavy campaigning in Michigan swung a lot of late voters his way, and his ability to do that is lessened somewhat by the Ohio voters who may have started voting as early as mid-February for this election, and who may have already mailed in their absentee ballots (early voting in Ohio is both in person and also absentee mail in.)

-Illinois I think Clinton wins for a few reasons. One is that her lead there is even bigger than in Michigan, so we’d need an even more historic polling error for her to lose. I think it’s quite likely, for reasons similar to Michigan and Ohio, that she doesn’t win by the large margin she’s expected to; but Michigan was also a stronger demographic state for Bernie. Demographics wise Hillary is “supposed” to win Illinois, unlike Michigan and Ohio. Chicago also is a hotbed of pro-Obama sentiment, and that may count for something here, as Hillary is essentially the Obama third term candidate. Illinois also has a reputation for having a well organized and highly influential/active Democratic political establishment, which also helps Hillary.

-North Carolina is listed as having a closed or semi-closed primary, but it’s functionally an open primary state since you can switch registration on the day of the election. Hillary’s polling lead here is a lot smaller than in any of the other three states. Having another “hunch” I think Bernie may win North Carolina. It’s a slightly red purple state (with a far red legislature as a sad result of what can happen when a small majority of the state is Republican), it’s a Southern state with a contingent of conservative white Democrats and a larger than average black population. But it’s also a state that has grown a lot, especially the “research triangle”, and it’s grown with lots and lots of college educated young whites who are politically very liberal (they are what is turning North Carolina from red to purple, and likely from purple to blue in a couple election cycles.) I think they will come out very hard for Bernie, plus aside from the young 20/30 something college educated white professionals, North Carolina has a ton of major universities who will also have a lot of enthusiastic Bernie voters. They also are hard to poll–automated polling cannot dial cell phones, most young people exclusively have cell phones. So those polls have to model the expected vote among cell phone users, an error prone process. Manual dialing pollsters can hit cell phones, but they run it based on North Carolina area codes and exchanges, a lot of college students have out of state area codes so will also be missed by this process. So there is good reason to believe the polling in North Carolina is off.

We really need to start a Senate thread, but I checked last night and there’s surprisingly little polling data to base one on. It still seems to me that there’s no scenario in which the Democrats win the Presidency, but don’t retake the Senate, this election.

And I think the “giving the movement validity” thing is kind of overrated. Sure, he’s the only major politician to embrace the Socialist ™ label, but it’s not like he’s all alone on policy issues. I just Googled “most liberal members of Congress” and got a bunch of different lists of Congresspeople by ideology. Some of them have him as the most liberal Senator, but others don’t, and the National Journal doesn’t even have him in the top ten. He’s on the left wing of the mainstream, but it’s not like he’s off on his own little island.

What candidates would those be? Bernie is going to finish no worse than second, and has the support of at least 40% of the party. Is he being compared to the likes of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich?

Based on immediate past precedent, it would seem the runner-up is in line for a good Cabinet post; probably Labor would be his choice.

Actually, I am failing to remember offhand the last time this exact scenario played out, where a party had exactly two serious candidates heading into primary season, and still hadn’t resolved the issue after almost half the states had voted.

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
That’s cute, you hate the super-communist candidate because, in this instance, he actually supported the supposed capitalist values of allowing businesses that made poor decision to fail. You reject him because he failed to socialize that failure and pay for poor business decisions out of the public coffer.
[/quote]

I mean even legit socialists in Europe largely voted for various forms of banking bailouts during the great rececession. This is a good government issue–something Bernie sucks at because he thinks ideology trumps good government issues. Socialists in Europe have had to do something Bernie has never done–actually govern, so they’ve made tough decisions on issues like this, something Bernie also has never done. Opposing bank stabilization was simply stupid.

I’m a hard core capitalist that actually advocated against the auto bailouts, I think they should’ve been allowed to go through the bankruptcy process and the free market would’ve sorted it out. It also would’ve killed the auto unions, which I view as a good thing. The auto bailouts were really a UAW bailout. I generally as a capitalist dislike excessive government entanglement with the free market, especially in the role of “subsidizing risk taking” which is what we do with implicit guarantees of private liabilities. But government is about making tough choices, if I was in President Obama’s shoes in 2009 I’d be making decisions based on the world we have, not the world I want to have. Bernie was doing the latter–and that’s both stupid and dangerous.