Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/sanderss-party-problem/460293/?utm_source=SFFB

Quote

Bernie Sanders's Problem With Democrats
Will the Democratic Party nominate a candidate who hasn’t been a member of their party, and who has long denounced it?


Susan Walsh / AP


  
PAUL STARR  FEB 8, 2016   2016 ELECTION
When a party chooses its presidential candidate, it also chooses its party leader in the election. This year the Democrats face an unusual situation. Bernie Sanders isn’t just an outsider to the party establishment; he’s not even been a member of the party, and has long excoriated it in unsparing language. Although the media haven’t much focused on this history, the early signs suggest it could become a problem for Sanders in getting the nomination—and a problem for the party if he does get it.

According to the entrance polls at the Iowa caucuses, there was a 30-percentage-point split between self-identified Democrats and independents in their support for Sanders. Hillary Clinton won 56 percent of self-identified Democrats but only 26 percent of independents, while Sanders won only 39 percent of Democrats but 69 percent of independents.

LATEST FROM 2016 ELECTION

 
Democracy Won in New Hampshire

This difference will loom large in primaries and caucuses limited only to registered Democrats. To vote in closed primaries, voters first have to register their affiliation with the party, usually about a month before election day. All the February caucuses and primaries are effectively open. (Nevada is described as “closed,” but participants can pick a party on the day of the caucus.) Thereafter, according to the nonpartisan organization FairVote, Democrats are holding closed primaries in three of the largest states (Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania) as well as in 13 others (Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine, Maryland, Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona, Oregon, Wyoming, and Nebraska).

California law allows the parties to limit participation in what will be the last major primary in June. For 2016, however, the California Democrats decided to open up their election, while the Republicans are keeping theirs closed. That could prove to be a fateful decision if the Democratic battle is still undecided. Some of the anti-establishment, independent vote that might have gone into the Republican primary could go to Sanders (also a possibility in other open-primary states now that Rand Paul has dropped out).

 

Long way to go, and why I think Hilary will still get the nod for the Democrats. Sanders doesn't have lot's of support within the party widely due to the above. 

As for the Republicans, who the hell knows. Bloomberg would run as an Independent if it was Trump v Sanders allegedly, so he might steal the boring vote. 

No democrat is voting for Trump and no republican votes for Sanders, the independent lot is mayhem though. You have plenty of voters in some of these states who are split between Trump or Sanders though :D  The anti "the-way-things-are" vote seems fairly universal across the spectrum and in plenty of other western countries. It could be the catalyst for wider change, but I'm skeptical. Those in power know how to keep their place at the table safe and secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, maqroll said:

Pretty accurate indicator of opposing political views in New England. Solidly left wing, progressive, anti-war social justice candidate vs unreligious, sloganeering, jingoistic racist.

From my time in New Hampshire, it felt like a redneck state in the country and a New England state in the towns and cities. 

Very odd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not entirely surprising. I know this is wildly generalistic,  but I do find that broadly speaking those who've actually come into contact with different kinds of people regularly tend to realise they aren't spawns of the devil coming to mess up their nice local traditions and just want to live their own life too, and therefore are a bit more empathetic to people's fates than gun toting independent folk who just want a steak sandwich and everyone to get off their land.  As well as the US just being rather geographically massive, the lifestyle habits of isolated farmers / small town communities is going to vary from the urbanite cosmopolitan set. 

 

Like I say, ever so slightly broad sweeps of the brush there ;) but there is a bit of truth in it, although I'm quickly going to edit it and just clarify that obviously not all rural folk are ignoramus' with a penchant for bigotry nor are urbanites of pure mind with fantastical ideals for progress. 

Edited by Rodders
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

If it does happen then I'm supporting ISIS in the apocalypse.  Surely he can't possibly win an election?

It's not really an election though.  It is a circus from what i can see run with so much money and waste that it kind of kills the whole point,  if you spend a billion getting into office and say i will help the poor.  I suspect the billion dorras could have a bigger effect immediately than the trickle down politics of those in power and thus makes a mockery of the whole thing IMO.

I bet they think it's really good as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

From my time in New Hampshire, it felt like a redneck state in the country and a New England state in the towns and cities. 

Very odd.

You got it. Much is made of the North/South divide in the States, but not nearly enough of the urban/rural divide. Someone (I think it was James Carville) once rightly described Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Am I the only one that wants Trump to win just to see what would happen ? For comedy value alone.

Same with the Scottish referendum,  just too see what would happen is half the fun.

I want Trump to win, I think he is brilliant entertainment. He's a lunatic :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Awol said:

Two questions really, how did it get to this position and what do you think it bodes for the future? 

I think most voters view the Washington Establishment with weariness and contempt, and what Sanders and Trump/Cruz represent is an alternative to the status quo. People see total gridlock in Washington, where nothing gets done. People on the right think most Republicans in Washington are too soft on immigration, abortion, marriage equality, etc., and many on the left view the Dems as too centrist, too soft on Wall St. and too hawkish on foreign policy.

But I wouldn't look too far into the New Hampshire results. Clinton has massive support amongst blacks and older voters. She's got PAC money, whereas Sanders refuses it. So unless she comes unglued along the way, I can't see him getting the nomination. Most Americans hear the word socialist and they think we'll all be sent to labor camps.

I still think Trump will implode and either Cruz or Bush surge ahead. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maqroll said:

I still think Trump will implode and either Cruz or Bush surge ahead. 

 

 

In an era where 'Establishment' candidates are finding such labels as anchors rather than buoys, I suspect the name 'Bush' is not a preferred choice amongst the candidates.

Christie is now gone. Fiorina must go sooner or later, she's got zero traction. Carson is doing worse than I thought. Rubio had a terrible New Hampshire debate (mullered by Christie, ironically) so he has work to do.

Fiorina may well be next to go. Bush might continue because his name might attract more SuperPAC donations in the long run but he's still way off the pace. Even Kasich has done more than him.

If Bush gets trounced in Florida (where he was governor) that will be pretty humiliating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JamieZ said:

You got it. Much is made of the North/South divide in the States, but not nearly enough of the urban/rural divide. Someone (I think it was James Carville) once rightly described Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between".

It's an odd thing. Up here in Maine, once you get outside the cities and coastal towns, it's Hillbilly Heaven. Country music on every other station, trucks with NASCAR bumper stickers and **** Confederate flags! A lot of Mainers died in the Civil War, but these numb nuts probably don't even know there was a civil war.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The most important point re Iowa and New Hampshire is, don't read too much into them. Their practical function is to reduce the size of the field. 

Sanders remains on course to lose comfortably, as he still appears to have made no inroads with minority voters. This chart, borrowed from here, shows how far behind he is in the next two states, followed by some of those with the largest delegate counts:

DATE STATE CLINTON SANDERS
2/20 Nevada 50.3 28.1
2/27 South Carolina 60.5 29.3
3/8 Michigan 59.9 29.0
3/15 Florida 61.0 26.0
3/15 North Carolina 55.9 28.3
3/15 Ohio 52.8 38.6
4/5 Wisconsin 45.6 43.4
4/26 Pennsylvania 51.4 28.0
6/7 California 46.3 32.

 

As you can see, he's looking to have to overturn 20+ point deficits in most of them. The smart money remains on the Democrat race being basically over in favour of Hillary within a month or so. 

Trump is different, he seems like he could actually win, although it's a very very very long way to go yet. 

 

But the text above the chart says Nevada hasn't been polled since December. SC hasn't been polled since Iowa.

In sum - the figures in the chart are totally out of date.

Polls around November showed a clear Clinton win in New Hampshire. Sanders was dead. Yet in NH she conceded with a quarter of the voted counted.

The upshot is that Sanders is doing WAY better than the figures above suggest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama had a huge advantage over Hillary in South Carolina with black voters. This time around it's Hillary vs a old white Jewish New Yorker. "Jewish New York Socialist" is going to be a major obstacle for Sanders in Bible Belt states and beyond. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heretic said:

 

But the text above the chart says Nevada hasn't been polled since December. SC hasn't been polled since Iowa.

In sum - the figures in the chart are totally out of date.

Polls around November showed a clear Clinton win in New Hampshire. Sanders was dead. Yet in NH she conceded with a quarter of the voted counted.

The upshot is that Sanders is doing WAY better than the figures above suggest.

 

 

He's not going to have turned around 20+ point deficits in all (or even many) of those states for exactly the reason @maqroll gives above. 

But this is a bit pointless. Believe what you want to believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rodders said:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/sanderss-party-problem/460293/?utm_source=SFFB

 

Long way to go, and why I think Hilary will still get the nod for the Democrats. Sanders doesn't have lot's of support within the party widely due to the above. 

As for the Republicans, who the hell knows. Bloomberg would run as an Independent if it was Trump v Sanders allegedly, so he might steal the boring vote. 

No democrat is voting for Trump and no republican votes for Sanders, the independent lot is mayhem though. You have plenty of voters in some of these states who are split between Trump or Sanders though :D  The anti "the-way-things-are" vote seems fairly universal across the spectrum and in plenty of other western countries. It could be the catalyst for wider change, but I'm skeptical. Those in power know how to keep their place at the table safe and secure.

Quite an odd view in that article.  Does the Author really think the Democrats could afford NOT to run Sanders if he pips Clinton ? If they didn't nominate him, he'd stand as an Independent and the Republicans would walk into the White House !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes after watching the news I feel like just selling up everything I own and living every day like it's my last when I think about Americans. W Bush was one thing, how that never went a lot worse than it did is a miracle, but Trump would be quite another. As another poster alluded to, if the yanks were capable of not only voting Bush jnr in, but giving him a second term, then anything is possible. A president Trump does not even bear thinking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SpanishVilla said:

Sometimes after watching the news I feel like just selling up everything I own and living every day like it's my last when I think about Americans. W Bush was one thing, how that never went a lot worse than it did is a miracle, but Trump would be quite another. As another poster alluded to, if the yanks were capable of not only voting Bush jnr in, but giving him a second term, then anything is possible. A president Trump does not even bear thinking about.

In truth, Bush stole the election in 2000 triggering riots in the streets of Washington on his inauguration, which all major news outlets did not cover. If Gore had the balls to challenge it, the Bush fiasco might never have happened. It always bothered me how quickly Gore folded and conceded. I think there were some very sleazy back room things going on there. 

Edited by maqroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â